The good principal: A case study of early-career charter principals’ role conceptualizations

Introduction

This case study focused on role conceptualizations of early-career principals in American public charter schools. General role conceptualizations include an individual’s:

pre-service knowledge of the role (Lortie, 2002);

Understanding nuances of role conceptualizations of first-time principals may help universities and school systems fill unknown gaps in knowledge and expectation that can lead to burnout and job dissatisfaction (Fuchs Ebaugh, 1988; Maslach and Leiter, 2008, 2016).

Charter schools were born in the 1990s, in part to provide families with ‘high-quality’ school choice (Junge, 2012; Knaak and Knaak, 2013) – that is, schools that typically operate outside of traditional state-organized districts while utilizing public funding (see Figure 1). Starting with one school in Minnesota, charter schools now enroll more than three million children across the United States, primarily clustered around urban districts (Knaak and Knaak, 2013; National Alliance for Public Charter Schools [NAPCS], 2017). Though not the only factor, the need for equitable education, particularly among White, African-American, and Hispanic children, has played a large role in the rapid growth of charter schools. Following the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, partially intended to support children of color and children from low socioeconomic status backgrounds, families became increasingly concerned with public schools and the evolution of the learning and equity gap (Knaak and Knaak, 2013; Rotberg, 2014). Yet, there is concern that charter schools have contributed to, rather than solved, equity issues in education, particularly around high-quality access and academic ‘success’ (Rotberg, 2014). There is evidence that charter school choice increases segregation in publicly-funded schools (Bifulco et al., 2007; Rangvid, 2007; Rotberg, 2014; Thomson, 2010; Yoon and Gulson, 2010). Further, segregation of schools is experienced internationally, when unregulated or poorly designed choice mechanisms prevail, where segregation can include race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, special education status, and religion (Bifulco et al., 2007; Rangvid, 2007; Rotberg, 2014; Thomson, 2010; Yoon and Gulson, 2010). Aspects of choice may include the physical system families use to submit applications, directly targeting specific races or ethnicity (e.g., culturally-based programs), exclusive participation prerequisites for families, and/or lack of specific policy around charter placement, among many other possibilities (Rotberg, 2014).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Local education agency structure in the United States.

The emphasis on maintaining enrollment and increased autonomy without district support (e.g., maintain facilities and budgeting) create a unique, and sometimes unstable, setting for charter principals (Campbell and Gross, 2008). Given what is known about the role of school leaders in student and teacher outcomes, although often indirect (e.g., reduced teacher turnover), it is important to understand leaders situated in a variety of public settings, such as charter schools (Hallinger and Heck, 1998; Leithwood and Riehl, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005). Thus, Washington School, the case explored in this study, provided a glimpse into the charter management organization setting, described below.

At the time of the interview, participating educators had five or fewer years as a principal in a charter school setting, and some had already opted to exit the role completely. This five-year cutoff is critical, as nearly 75 per cent of principals leading charter schools in the United States leave the role within the first five years (Campbell and Gross, 2008). Further, given the perceived competition between public charter schools and traditional public schools (TPSs) (Brady, 2003) and the controversy around school choice provided by charter schools, it is important to acknowledge that principal instability is not uniquely charter-based (see Figure 1 for school structure). In TPS, 25 percent of principals leave their school each year, whether through attrition or movement to another school, with higher mobility related to urbanicity and student demographics (Baker et al., 2010; Béteille et al., 2012; Fuller et al., 2007; Gates et al., 2006). TPS principals in urban districts or schools operating in vulnerable communities (i.e., high incidents of children living in poverty) exit the role or move from school to school at a rate of 30–50 percent annually (Baker et al., 2010; Fuller et al., 2007; Gates et al., 2006; Valentine and Prater, 2011). Little is known about the underlying motives behind school leadership mobility (Tekleselassie and Villareal, 2011). This research posits that a mismatch between the role conceptualizations of first-time principals and the first years in the role lead to burnout and job dissatisfaction, comparable to burnout research in other fields, such as nurses (Maslach and Leiter, 2016). Thus, exploring role conceptualizations may help those involved in systems used to train and support principals to reflect on current practices and pave the way for future research.

Study design

Procedure

The participating charter management organization, described below, operated as an illustrative case, using a holistic, multiple-case design (Yin, 2003). The study aimed to answer the following research questions:

Central question: What are the early-career role conceptualizations of charter principals within one charter management organization [CMO] network?

Sub-questions: How do early-career charter principals describe being a good principal? What themes emerge from analyzing data.

One-on-one interviews, surveys, and documents were used to answer these questions (see Figure 2). Data sources were intended to work together to help the researcher: (a) identify themes related to the research question; (b) identify organizational and role trends that emerged in addition to the research question; and (c) create trustworthy findings through convergence (Yin, 2003).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Case study data sources.

Data analysis

Analysis of transcripts and documents relied on grounded theory and other qualitative strategies (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin and Strauss, 2008; Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Saldaña, 2009; van Manen, 1992). Coding was performed in two phases, during which data collection and analysis, memo writing, and codebook revisions were non-sequential but rather repetitious and/or parallel to one another (Creswell, 2007). Phase 1 consisted of data immersion and analysis using a predetermined thematic codebook (Creswell, 2007; Saldaña, 2009). Phase 2 used axial coding to identify and flesh out themes using codes and categories along with dimensions. Axial coding included the use of analytic memos and graphic representations (e.g., affinity mapping) to identify and represent relationships (e.g., information graphic) between and within codes and categories (Corbin and Strauss, 2008; Saldaña, 2009). For example, graphics giving shape to ‘interpersonal communication’ and the codes’ relationships to each other pulled directly from participants responses and descriptions. Figure 3 demonstrates these relationships. For example, ‘reprimand,’ ‘coach,’ and ‘empower’ are closely coupled with ‘staff communication’ types, and ‘reprimand’ is larger than the other two codes because it was described more frequently and with greater detail.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Sample graphic representation of ‘interpersonal communication’ open codes.

The analysis codebook: The codebook was originally developed as part of a previous study of TPS principals, focused on exited principals with fewer than five years of principalship experience (Truong, 2017). The initial codebook was based on leadership and career literature, including role exit, burnout and stress, general leadership (e.g., transformational leadership), and socialization. Given the unique nature of this case, discussed below, the codebook was adjusted. For example, participants in this study did not discuss leadership teams because they did not lead schools large enough to have assistant principals, in comparison to TPS participants who derived job dissatisfaction from such teams (Truong, 2016). Thus, leadership teams and related codes were omitted.

Participating charter school local education agency context

In the United States, public charter schools are tuition-free programs to families (NAPCS, 2017). Whereas most public schools have regimented geographic boundaries for student attendance, charter schools’ boundaries are larger or less defined (e.g., open to residents of an entire city), so long as transportation can be arranged. Most charter schools accept children through an application lottery rather than merit-based applications. This creates funding competition, as state and federal funds follow children to charter schools.

Washington School, the participating program’s pseudonym, is part of a growing number of charters that operate multiple school sites. Because Washington School operates multiple schools under a single ‘charter’ approved by the local authorizing body in the region, they qualify as a charter management organization (CMO; Center for Research on Education Outcomes, 2017). Washington School’s growth as a CMO happened over the course of more than 15 years. Originally a single site, Washington School evolved into nine schools and a main office structure (i.e., where leadership and operations staff are housed). Approximately 1,000 children are enrolled annually throughout one urban city.

Principals at Washington School do not supervise assistant principals or other subordinate leadership. There are a variety of shared services across the schools, including: special educators, speech pathologists, data specialists, an English Language Learner specialist, and human resource staff. Instructional coaches are also provided by the main office, but the hours of service provided to each site are dependent on the perceived need of children or teachers.

Educators are primarily hired from Washington School classrooms and main office staff to be principals. Of the 30 principals employed by Washington School, all were first time principals. Further, principals had varied education backgrounds, though all possessed bachelor’s degrees and most had graduate degrees, but not generally in education.

With relatively high rates of attrition, Washington School established a residency program which was akin to a fellowship. Participating residents received leader professional development as part of a structured, year-long program while operating as a school principal full-time. This included weekly meetings with a supervisor to participate in reflective learning activities, documentation to monitor day-to-day performance, and workshops on specific topics. The overarching themes in the resident year included supervision, school management, and instructional leadership. Because of the timing of the resident program not all principals participated in the resident program.

Washington School’s structure includes three main office staff members supporting principals, one of whom supervises principals directly. The other roles focus on instructional coaching and implementation support. However, the structure of the organization and approaches to school quality have remained fluid over the course of the CMO’s growth. This created inconsistencies in expectations, and turnover has continued to plague Washington School, much like charter schools around the nation (Campbell and Gross, 2008).

Participants: Washington School employed a total of 30 principals over the course of more than 15 years. Of those 30 individuals, 28 were contacted via email or phone. A total of 15 principals opted to participate in this study, along with communication with two district leaders. Of the 15 participants, ten were active principals at the time of the interview. The remaining five had exited the role and not gone on to be principals at other organizations. Most participants did not participate in ‘traditional’ licensure routes (i.e., university coursework and assessment resulting in state license), as is common for charter schools (Campbell and Gross, 2008), but slightly over half had explicit leadership roles, such as instructional coach or other leadership roles, before becoming a principal (see Table 1 for description of sample).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participant demographic summary

Classification	Participants
Gender	Female: 13
	Male: 2
Highest level of education	Bachelor’s: 2
	Master’s: 12
	Doctorate: 0
	Unreported: 1
Preparation route	Graduate school: 4
	Alternative program (e.g. New Leaders): 5
	No preparation: 6
Years as teacher	0 years: 1
	1–3 years: 2
	4–6 years: 5
	7–10 years: 3
	10+ years: 3
	Unreported: 1
Years as non-principal leader (e.g. dean, assistant principal)	0 years: 6
	1–3 years: 4
	4–6 years: 3
	7–10 years: 1
	Unreported: 1
Years as principal	<1 year: 6
	1–3 years: 7
	4+ years: 2
Principal status	Current principal: 5
	Former principal: 10

Data collection

The primary source of information was semi-structured interviews with current and former principals. The interview protocol was originally developed as part of a grounded theory study of early-exit of TPS principals (Truong, 2016). The protocol aligned with literature on leadership theories, principal training, early socialization, supervision, career pathways, and job dis/satisfaction (Truong, 2016). The protocol was adapted for this study to include an additional primary prompt and several probing prompts. Further, the interviews were adapted based on a participant’s career status. For example, if the participant had already exited the principalship, he or she would be asked to describe their exit. If, however, the participant was still in the role, he or she would be asked to describe future career intentions. The primary prompts included:

Tell me about how you became a principal.

There was a series of secondary questions that were clustered by relationship to primary questions. Secondary questions supported participants in communicating their experiences if the initial prompts felt too broad. Not all questions were used with all participants. Corbin and Strauss (2008) refer to these as ‘back up questions’ as they can be used to encourage participants to relax and speak more freely (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin and Strauss, 2008: 28). Two important questions to point out are: ‘What do you think makes a good principal?’ followed by ‘What skills do new principals need to bring to the position?’ Though secondary questions, they were asked of every participant. Interviews were completed and recorded during the spring of 2017 and immediately transcribed for analysis. Each one-on-one interview was 90–130 minutes.

For the survey, participants were asked a series of questions regarding their professional experiences and training. The final data source was organizational documents. These included a principal job description, the resident principal job description, an organization chart, and a school quality review process. Documents provided a glimpse into organizational culture, climate, and structural emphasis. These documents also provided an interesting comparison to participants’ perceptions and direct experiences.

Findings

Participants were asked a series of direct questions regarding their perceptions of what makes a ‘good principal.’ These prompts included:

What do you think makes a good principal?

There were also a series of questions that indirectly addressed conceptualizations of the role, such as, ‘What has surprised you about being principal?’

Responses to these questions were analyzed for defining characteristics listed by participants. Much of this raw list of descriptions can be categorized as hard and soft skills. Hard skills are typically considered technical skills and knowledge necessary to complete the tasks and functions of a role (Charoensap-Kelly et al., 2016). Discussions of technical skills and knowledge included principals’:

ability to be organized with materials and task management, as well as being timely with feedback to teachers;

The job descriptions provided by Washington School included those three skills but also placed emphasis on supervision, which was infrequently discussed in participants’ responses, outside of teacher professionalism.

The soft skills detailed by participants – those skills related to inter- and intrapersonal communication – were far more ubiquitous in discussion. Soft skills are more challenging to define and learn (Charoensap-Kelly et al., 2016). However, there are often distinct features found across scholarly definitions such as (a) social skills, (b) social engagement or participation in the workplace, and (c) communication (Charoensap-Kelly et al., 2016; James and James, 2004; Kechagias, 2011). Participants’ descriptions of soft skills ranged from ‘family communication’ to ‘team building’ to ‘being a good listener’ (see Figure 4 for the full list of referenced skills). Though descriptions focused on interpersonal communication, particularly with families and classroom teachers, there was a third category focused on personal characteristics. These qualities can also be referred to as trait leadership, which encompasses features that are often discussed in relation to an individual’s personality, or persona, rather than learnable skills and behaviors (Elmore, 2000; Germain, 2012). Further, trait leadership refers to qualities that leaders embodied that are not influenced, at least not significantly, by training or other external forces (Elmore, 2000). For example, one participant described her model principal, ‘My inspiration was my prior principal—the one I worked under. She was a very strong leader’ (Participant 11). ‘Strong’ is a personal trait that the participant subjectively identified in another leader. It would be challenging to define systematically and replicate ‘strong’ in new principals. Though there are likely attributes, such as perseverance or personal drive, that make some individuals more successful than others as principals, overemphasis of these may make inexperienced leaders believe that ‘good’ principals are simply naturals, rather than the experienced, knowledgeable educators they have grown to be over time (Germain, 2012; Truong, 2017).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Hard skills, soft skills, and trait characteristics described by participants.

The good principal recategorized

According to participants, good principals’ skills, traits, knowledge, and dispositions fall into four categories (see Figure 5 for diagram of categories). The first two categories, leader behaviors and knowledge, are tightly-coupled to hard skills. Purpose and personality traits are related to soft skills and personal traits.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

Features of a good principal as perceived by participants.

Leader behavior category: Leader behaviors consist of learnable behaviors, actions, processes, and systems used by principals. For example, tasks and activities that build the school staff as a team, being organized, and being a continuous learner are among the responses provided. ‘Organized’ was a code that received considerable descriptions. Here are three such examples:

I have found I have to be organized myself. I write everything down I need to do, and then I prioritize everything. Every principal has to prioritize. (Participant 10)

…I’m hyper-scheduled, different days are different. I try to make sure I’m in every single classroom every day. I spend a lot of time…processing what I’ve seen and action planning around that. (Participant 3)

I’ve learned a lot about myself…that I still have to work on. I’m not always the best at following a schedule…I have to do a weekly, daily schedule. And, that’s not necessarily how I like to operate and so knowing that’s an expectation of [Washington School] it’s something I have to work on, kind of sticking to that schedule. I tend to work on things in [a] very…fluid and organic way instead of, ‘Okay, it’s 10 o’clock I’m supposed to be here and at 10:30 do this’. (Participant 11)

Leader knowledge category: Leader knowledge included knowledge and expertise prior to becoming a principal. This included knowledge of classroom instruction, specific knowledge of best practice for the age of children in the building, and, to a lesser extent, navigation of ‘office politics’. The job descriptions, in contrast, focus on multi-tiered systems of support, reading research, behavior modification strategies, and coaching of adults as the primary requisite knowledge principals and residents have upon entering the role. There may be a misalignment between principals’ beliefs in the knowledge necessary and the documented items in the job description. For example, though behavior comes up, it’s never a part of the skillset described by any participant. Instead, ‘behavior’ is discussed as ‘student behavior’ in which principals described themselves as marginally involved with behavior management, and generally at the request of a teacher.

Purpose category: Purpose encompasses the predefined mission and vision a principal should have for their school before entering the role. In fact, creating a vision for the school was, at times, considered the first order of business. One participant described this, ‘Have a vision for your school in what you want to see at the end of the year and at each quarter and have checkpoints along the way for each teacher’ (Participant 14). This places all the responsibility on the leader, and is antithetical to some of the current leadership theories, such as distributed theory, in which leadership is shared amongst capable adults and facilitated rather than monopolized by the leader (Spillane, 2006). Another described pushing her vision, ‘Getting teachers to really buy into the vision that I would share with them. I was really successful at that’ (Participant 6).

In contrast, job descriptions for principals and resident principals did not indicate vision setting as an imperative skill for incoming candidates. Incumbent principals are tasked with understanding the existing organization vision of Washington School. And, in the case of resident principals, the vision process was supported and guided by home office staff, rather than being created and rolled out in isolation when transitioning into the role.

Additionally, participants discussed being mission-driven by understanding the needs of the students and families. Participant 8 described the student population, ‘…a good principal really understands the population that the school is serving. And, understands the needs of that population. And, works with that population in the most respectful way possible.’ Another described ways to support families who may be struggling with raising children: “I want parents to [see], ‘Look at how great you’re doing, look at what you’re doing for your kid.' Like, these are good choices you’re making as a parent. Let me help you navigate when it isn’t some[thing] totally clear what to do” (Participant 3).

Personal traits category: Finally, personal traits were those descriptions that are rooted in personality characteristics or personality perceptions. These were the characteristics that participants described a leader needed to portray to teachers and other staff to be successful – essentially a persona. The characteristics included being:

reliable;

It’s unlikely that anyone in education would reject any or all of the characteristics on the list as unnecessary or irrelevant; however, many on the list are nebulous. It may also be telling that the conceptualizations found in participants' responses around leader knowledge and behaviors were less robust and developed than perceptions of pre-existing personality traits needed to be a school leader. As such, after only a short time, early-career principals may be inclined to focus on trait leadership to gauge their own fit for the role, rather than building hard and soft skills over time that will make them successful and make the role sustainable.

Discussion

Aspiring charter school principals generally participate in formal socialization, of both traditional (e.g., graduate school and state licensure) and non-traditional (e.g., residency program) routes. Understanding trends in perceptions, experiences, and need among early-career principals may help programs modify: (a) misaligned role perceptions (e.g., ‘I have to have a vision from my school on my first day as principal.’); (b) training foci; and (c) its own approach to what it means to be a ‘good principal.’ Further, given that role conceptualizations develop largely when an individual is close to the start of a potential new role, anticipatory training, before entering a role, may play a critical role in providing new principals the expectations and basic soft skills that a resident program could build upon over time (Kramer, 2010; Lortie, 2002). Further, given that new principals may begin very early with self-assessment of fit, tightly-coupled training may prevent unnecessary attrition and lack of self-efficacy.

The following characteristics have been found to lead to successful socialization of first-time principals, which can accommodate any content type:

intentional progression from aspiring leader through early induction and establishment phases for principals (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Oplatka, 2010);

However, based on the findings of this study, the ‘how’ of the delivery will need to be coupled with understanding which skills and technical knowledge early-career principals lack or that are typically underdeveloped over time.

Limitations

The nature of case study work has a number of limitations, compounded by factors endemic to this study. This research included access to all principals who worked for one large charter network from the day the doors opened. However, of the 30 possible, 28 were contacted, and 15 participated. Though the sample is suitable for the methods selected, it does pose challenges in creating a full illustrative case of early-career charter principals as this sample may not be representative, owing in part to selection effects.

Charter schools are a growing school structure in the United States, but they have a variety of permissable structures of which this case study only explored one: the large charter network with a separate, overarching charter management organization. This may make these findings less applicable to charters with one school site or to TPSs. Further, the documentation provided by the schools as a point of comparison was relevant only for the two to three years preceding the study. Thus, any participants who served as principal prior would not have had those job descriptions or evaluations available in writing.