Principals changing schools and their career options after principalship: Exploring reasons and options within Malaysian principalship

Abstract

The issue of principals moving or changing schools has emerged and has been debated within the previous literature that investigates why principals move after a few years of principalship. Based on previous findings, various reasons are listed as motives for principals to move from, or remain at, their current schools. However, within Malaysian principalship, little is known about why principals move to a new school and their options after completing/leaving a principalship position. Thus, this article investigates reasons for moving to second schools and options after the principalship position within the Malaysian context of principalship. For that purpose, nine principals, comprising four middle-phase and five senior principals, were interviewed to solicit their reasons for moving and their options after their principalship phase has been completed. Various factors are mentioned by the principals, such as being posted to schools that are at a distance from their home, providing a platform for a novice principal, and assisting schools that have low achievements. In terms of options after a principalship, senior principals spoke of their intention to remain at the same school until their retirement phase arrives. However, interviewed senior principals revealed their intentions of becoming school leadership consultants as a platform to share their wide experiences with novice principals.

Keywords

Malaysia principalship public schools school leadership senior principals

Introduction

It is acknowledged that school principals have a pivotal role or act as a ‘driver’ in determining the effectiveness of a school (Bryk et al., 2010; Hallinger, 2013; Leithwood and Sun, 2012). As a school leader, they have to ensure the smooth operation of the school leadership and management, which has a significant influence on the school’s achievements (Grissom and Susanna, 2011; Ni et al., 2015). Therefore, as they play such an indispensable role in improving the school’s performance and teacher and staff commitment, the issue of principals moving, changing schools, or leaving the principalship profession has been debated within the emerging body of literature (Béteille et al., 2012; Kearney et al., 2012; Ni et al., 2015). It has been hypothesised that a principal moving will have an impact on the achievement of a school (Boyce and Bowers, 2016; Ni et al., 2015). At the same time, previous studies have also stressed the difficulty in attracting and retaining highly-qualified principals in the post of a school leader (Papa, 2007; Papa and Baxter, 2005) due to issues with the principalship tenure, poor working conditions, being overstressed and underpaid, high workloads, and compensatory elements (Brock and Fraser, 2001; Papa, 2007).

The concerns of principals changing schools have been conceptualised using various definitions. In the UK, it is known as a second headship when principals move to another school after being considered successful in leading their first school (Fidler and Jones, 2005), while in the US context, Boyce and Bowers (2016) conceptualised the issue of the principal moving to a new school and being replaced with a new principal as ‘principal turnover’. However, it is noted that there is some anecdotal evidence of principals who were successful at their first school being less successful at their second school (Fidler and Jones, 2005). In this sense, Earley et al. (1995) stressed that principals who move to a second headship are likely to have felt satisfied with their first school, compared to long-stay principals who feel dissatisfied with the first principalship. Therefore, it is clear that there are various reasons why principals move to another school to proceed to a second principalship.

Critically, there is still limited research exploring the reasons why school principals move to another school or change to another career after their principalship (Plecki et al., 2017) in other Asian educational systems and in the Malaysian context of principalship. Although the issue of a principal moving to another school and their options after the principalship is not a recent discovery, as it was initially explored in the 1980s and 1990s by researchers from developed countries such as from the UK, US and Australia, the issue within the Malaysian context of principalship remains understudied and largely unknown. Significantly, this study will improve the understanding of principalship in Malaysia, which has received little attention compared to the issue of teacher retention and reasons for moving. Firstly, it provides relevant information on establishing a career path for principals regardless of their schooling levels, especially on the reasons why principals move and their options after completing their principalship journeys. In this sense, researchers (Sheppard, 2010; Zellner et al., 2002) believed that the information obtained from the study can be employed within principals’ leadership development programs to provide specific training in coping with factors that contribute to principals’ decisions to move, and for creating a suitable and relevant post for principals after leaving their principalship post.

Literature review

Principals moving and changing schools

There are various reasons why principals move to another school: to obtain a much higher grade and salary (Béteille et al., 2012; Fidler and Jones, 2005; Papa, 2007), low incentives and heavy workloads (Scarpa, 2005), job stress (Cushing et al., 2003; Hertling, 2001), lack of support from parents and the community (Hertling, 2001), the decision of the central office (Béteille et al., 2012), and a self-perceived degree of leadership influence. Of those, the latter is believed to be the least important reason (Tekleselassie and Villarreal, 2011).

Based on previous research, a few studies have indicated various motives why principals move to another school, and the financial aspect, e.g. the salary that they received (Fidler and Jones, 2005; Papa, 2007), is a significant reason for moving. For instance, in a study of English secondary principals, Fidler and Jones (2005) revealed that various factors including principals’ remuneration were reasons why principals moved to a second principalship. Additionally, principals also mentioned that the lack of pressure they received at the first school motivated some of them to move to a second principalship to attain a more challenging position at the second school. Thirdly, giving and providing new learning experiences to novice principals was also mentioned as a reason for mid-career principals moving to a new school. Later, with English schools, Fidler et al. (2009) and Fidler et al. (2006) conducted a national survey with 86 primary English principals. In both studies, reasons for moving to a second headship were addressed based on three essential motives: personal reasons, the school and external reasons. In terms of personal reasons, some principals highlighted that they did not want to spend their principalship career just within a single school, and other principals believed that it is wise to move to another school after completing their improvements within their first school. However, the issue of family relocation when principals have to move to another district could lessen principals’ intentions of moving to another school (Fidler et al., 2006). Regarding the school-linked reasons, most of the principals revealed having less pressure at their first school, and they requested that novice or neophyte principals should lead their first schools while they opted to lead a new school that could provide them with more challenging experiences. Lastly, regarding the external reasons, the principals also mentioned the situation when their schools had to be reorganised by the local educational authority and they were requested to move to a new school.

From the US perspective, researchers (Béteille et al., 2012; Loeb et al., 2010) have found that students’ socioeconomic status (SES) and levels of achievement are two central factors that influence principal turnover issues. Their study found that, in general, principals are moving away from schools that have more low-SES and low-achieving students to schools that are more achieving. Therefore, schools that are considered as having a low performance are currently facing high rates of principal turnover, as principals are preferring schools that are more successful (Loeb et al., 2010). In terms of the implications, Béteille et al. (2012) concluded that the issue of principal turnover also resulted in higher teacher turnover and lower levels of student achievement. Meanwhile, in Texas, Young and Fuller (2009) found that the issue of principal turnover was considered to be significant, as it was indicated that almost 50 per cent of newly-hired principals will leave their school after 3 years in the principalship and another 70 per cent will leave their school after 5 years as school leaders. Furthermore, Tekleselassie and Villarreal (2011) summarised that, based on their study of US principals, principals’ self-perceived degrees of leadership influence within the school were also thought to affect principals’ intentions to move from a school. Further, Papa (2007) conducted a study on the determinants of principals’ retention using multivariate analysis by examining the impact of relevant factors, such as salary, school characteristics, and the principals’ own traits. The findings revealed that principals with less than 5 years’ experience have a high likelihood of remaining as school principals, which is also associated with the salary factor. Thus, it is concluded that, compared to principals’ salaries and traits, the principals’ satisfaction levels make a significant contribution to principal retention.

From the perspective of other educational systems, Whittall (2002) conducted a qualitative study using a series of interviews and observations based on the decision by principals in New Zealand schools to move to other schools. Based on the findings, the data revealed that seeking promotion provided the foremost reason why they moved, while another 20 per cent mentioned seeking another profession besides principalship. From the study, schools located near and in a city have a lower percentage of principals’ moving compared to schools located in rural areas. In New South Wales Catholic schools, Fraser and Brock (2006) found that principals move to another school because of feeling dissatisfied with the current school and owing to the negative perception that they have made only limited contributions to their schools. Another pertinent reason mentioned by principals is the desire to face more challenges at their new schools as well as reasons related to family and personal needs.

Options after principalship

Theoretically, based on the principals’ succession, the senior phase of principalship informally marked the phase when principals started to think about their life stages within various situations; whereas some principals continued to become more committed, others felt discouraged, experiencing stagnation and a loss of enthusiasm (Wai-Bing and Omar, 2014). As such, researchers (Ingate, 2006; Weindling and Earley, 1987) found that in the final stage, and approaching retirement, principals’ performance tended to decline after achieving the peak performance of the principalship career, and they started to have a withdrawn attitude and to look for an exit from the school context. Empirically, previous studies have pointed out that principals leave the profession for many reasons: taking a position elsewhere in the state, conflict with the local community, or frustration (Kochan and Spencer, 1999); avoiding the feeling of stagnation (Fidler et al., 2009); a high volume of working hours, with an average of 59 hours per week (Lavigne et al., 2016); difficulty in accepting new challenges arising from previously routine tasks, lack of support, and family reasons (Sheppard, 2010). In contrast, Reames et al. (2014) reported that, based on their findings, some principals remained at the same school because they believed that they still felt a crucial duty to empower their teachers and students’ capabilities, received strong backing from the community and from their colleagues, and enjoyed the post and role of a school principal. However, they also believed principals would leave the post for family and health problems.

In 2006, Johnson studied 12 principals and their experiences of leaving the post of principal. Based on the qualitative findings, it appeared that nine of the principals were not satisfied with their job when they had to face too many obstacles which limited them in performing their instructional role. In addition, they also outlined some issues in school leadership, such as heavy workloads, bureaucracy, students’ disciplinary problems, and a lack of support from parents and their supervisors, which informally influenced a principal’s decision not to continue in their principalship position. In the Catholic school context, Durow and Brock (2004) found the reason why principals left the principalship were predominantly based on causes such as facing personal issues—for example, the convenience of the school’s location to their home, and the flexibility of school workload; the intention of changing position away from being a principal; and having conflicts with groups such as parents, the school presidents and the governing bodies. In Washington DC schools, Plecki et al. (2017) found a variety of types of decision made by principals; for example, 22 per cent decided to leave the principalship, 42 per cent decided to remain at the same school, and 23 per cent decided to remain in the same district while changing schools. Results from the logistic regression also indicate that male and secondary principals had a high likelihood of remaining at the same school until retirement compared to female and primary principals.

Research questions and methods

In this particular study, two research questions are posed as guidelines:

What are the causes that make middle-phase principals move to another school?

After experiencing senior principalship, what are the options for their future working career?

This article examines the perspective of middle-phase principals regarding their reasons for moving to their second school after leading their first school. For this reason, we interviewed four middle-phase principals who had experienced more than 4 years as principals and who had moved to their second school. In this study, another cluster consisted of five senior principals, who also purposely decided to explore their options before retiring from the post of principalship. The senior principals had more than 10 years of experience as school principals.

All nine principals were interviewed with an informal approach to obtain their accurate answers regarding their motives for changing schools and their options after retiring from the principalship post. Two sessions of interviews were organised. The first session was an interview with the middle-phase principals. In the first interview session, all four principals were asked the interview’s protocol items, i.e. “from your perspective, why are you changing school?” As for the senior principals’ interview session, they were asked questions related to their options or planning as senior principals: (a) “Do you think that you will remain with the same school until your retirement phase?” and (b) “Besides staying with the current school, what are your other options?” As the interviews were conducted using an informal approach, the subjects were given freedom in articulating their viewpoints.

After the actual data collection with nine principals, the interview data were later analysed structurally according to the procedures of thematic analysis, as suggested by Boyatzis (1998) and Braun and Clarke (2006). In the first stage, all interview data were transcribed. Next, when processing the data, verbatim copies were re-read several times to understand the interviewee’s perceptions and comments. After the re-read process was completed, the data were compared with the actual recorded data to ensure their accuracy. Later, each transcript was reviewed and the relevant sentences highlighted to assist in assigning the codes. The codes that were employed are in the form of a word or short phrases (Miles et al., 2014; Saldaña, 2009). Next, the codes were categorised into small units according to their similarities and differences. Later, the data were synthesised according to the categorization of patterns and similarities. Then, the researcher tried to construct some patterns based on the similarities. Themes were decided from the small units based on the relevance of the emerging themes. In the last stage, conclusions were made based on the interpretations and meanings.

Findings

Moving or changing schools

Through the interviews with the secondary and primary principals, three themes emerged regarding why principals move to other schools. Three essential themes emerged, namely, decisions from the central offices, personal reasons and helping low-performing schools. In analysing the relevant themes, each theme is further explored and discussed to form the findings of the study.

Formal decision from the central office

From the interviews, principals from secondary and primary schools have similar reasons regarding their intentions of moving, which are based on the official decision from the central office. According to Principal B, who is a primary school principal, they just receive and adhere to the central office’s decision to move them to another school regardless of their feelings about the first school. Principal B explained further:

As school principal, we can’t simply apply to move to another school. We just receive the formal decision from the central office. As for me, there was a strong reason when we were asked to move to another school.

A secondary principal noted:

It is not proper for us to ask for a transfer to a second school when we are still continuing our efforts in improving our schools. Usually, the central office of education has made the formal and official decision on reasons why we have to move.

Assisting other low-performing schools

Formally, another significant reason for a principal to move when ordered by the central office is to assist schools that have a low academic achievement, as part of fulfilling a moral obligation. This reason was mentioned by Principal C, who was a secondary principal regarding principals’ reasons for moving. Principal C explained:

Usually, the central office decisions are based on reasons for helping schools which are low performing, and their principals are approaching their retirement phase. Thus, we are asked to fill the post with the aim of initiating the school’s improvement process.

Another primary principal (Principal E) also noted that they were assigned to help the low-performing school:

There is another reason why principals are asked to move to another school, that is, to help schools which are low in terms of their overall performance. As the school leader, we are the leadership role model and problem solver for the school.

Inconvenient distance from the principals’ homes

During the interview sessions, principals also talked about another reason for transferring, which was just to bring them back to the district where they previously served from schools located far from their home districts. Thus, after years serving as principals, they were transferred to schools within their own district. In the interview, Principal D described the situation of transferring to his own district:

There is a reason why some principals are assigned and moved back to their own district. Some are posted at a school which is quite far from their previous district. Thus, most of them have to travel [far] from their home, which [is] considered ineffective. After a few years, they are asked to move back to their district. Another pertinent reason why principals received their previous postings to distant schools is typically based on the reason that there [was] no vacancy for a principalship position in their own district.

Platform for the younger and novice principals

Through further discussions with principals, surprisingly it was discovered that some were thinking of moving to another school simply to provide the chance for a younger and novice principal to lead their first school. Principal F had extensive experience of principalship, and yet she was thinking of moving because she believed that her younger successor would be able to lead the school effectively without her assistance. Thus, she thought of moving in order to help a low-performing school that requires an experienced principal to make some changes:

I have high trust in my teachers; they are quite capable of making the school effective. I am glad of their commitment and loyalty to the school. Actually, I’m thinking of moving to a second principalship with a low-performance school which requires my expertise and knowledge to achieve results similar to those of my current school.

To summarise, most principals mentioned that the reasons for moving to another school are predominantly based, not on the principals’ intention, but because they have to adhere to the official assignation provided by the central office. The official reasons for moving are based on intentions to assist other low-performing schools, providing a chance for a novice or aspiring principal to lead the school, and reposting some principals who had previously been posted to schools far from their own districts.

Options after principalship

Senior principals who participated in this study had compelling stories about their career paths and their reasons for leaving their principalship position. A majority of the primary senior principals spoke about their high level of confidence in leading their schools. However, senior principals communicated their intention of moving to another post, such as becoming a consultant or facilitator in helping and sharing their experiences with novice principals. In this sense, the substantial role of a leadership consultant, facilitator, mentor, or coach definitely provides principals with a platform to share and disseminate their experiences, skills and knowledge.

Becoming a school leadership consultant

In addition, most of the principals interviewed were searching for new experiences to avoid a feeling of stagnation and dissatisfaction with principals’ mundane tasks. For instance, Principal G illustrated her intention to become a consultant to novice principals and junior counterparts through the post of School Improvement Partner (SIPartner+) introduced by the Ministry of Education. She insisted that she was moving to avoid dissatisfaction and to share her expertise and knowledge with novice principals. She emphasised this situation as follows:

For me, I feel quite happy if I can share my experiences and some ideas with novices. It is my intention to be a principalship consultant. Last month, I gave a talk at the university and before that, I gave a session in State A, even at the ministry.

Remain at the school

On the other hand, while other principals were thinking of moving, Principal H declared his intention of completing his leadership journey with the same school until his retirement. To him, moving to another school would not solve any problems because they have to adapt and learn the school’s culture, including teachers’ attitudes and behaviours. Thus, he believed in staying, which he felt would provide him with sufficient time to implement changes. Principal H described his intention of staying with the school as a way of showing his loyalty to his school:

I would rather be with only one school until my retirement. My passion is to build this school’s capacity, as I have understood its culture and even teachers’ attitudes. I think this school insisted on my changes and improvements, and I feel I have not finished improving it.

Furthermore, principals indicated planning for their future career progression when they highlighted two major intentions: moving to another school and continuing to offer their knowledge and commitment as experienced school leaders through some knowledge-sharing activities with novice principals, such as securing a post as an SIPartner+, or working as a school leadership facilitator and consultant, a post introduced by the Ministry of Education with the purpose of assisting and guiding the existing principals to improve their schools. They claimed that the main reason for holding the post as a school leadership consultant and SIPartner+ was to overcome their feelings of dissatisfaction and stagnation within their career progression after spending years as a school principal. Noticeably, some principals also decided to remain at the same school until their retirement, without considering other options of moving to other schools or holding other consultation posts.

Discussion and conclusion

Initially, this study provides new findings regarding why principals in Malaysian schools are moving to their second school after being school leaders at their first school. In addition, this study offers a greater understanding of principals’ options at the phase of senior principalship. In general, it is clear that Malaysian principals have an official reason for moving derived from the central office or the State Department of Education’s decision, meaning they had to comply with moving to their second school. From the interviews, both primary and secondary principals described that, as a school leader, they have to adhere to the official decision of the central office even though some of them felt satisfied and contented with their first school. This finding revealed that some principals’ reasons are quite similar to those found in previous research, which also highlighted that it was the decision of the central office to move principals to their second schools, such as a study by Béteille et al. (2012), which also postulated that the decision to move stemmed from compliance with the decisions by the central office and the State Department of Education.

In addition, principals also stated that other reasons why some of them are asked to move by the central office include helping low-performing schools as part of the State’s moral obligation and to replace the current principal, who is in, or approaching, his/her retirement phase or being transferred to another school. Based on the findings, it is clear that there are various reasons why principals in Malaysian schools are moving or changing schools which support the previous study by Fidler et al. (2009) from English schools that principals have various reasons for moving, which include personal reasons, the school, and also external factors which influenced them to move from their current schools. To principals, it is an acknowledgement by the central office that they are initiating a school improvement process and acting as ‘a problem solver’ at their new schools, which are considered to be low-performing. In another case, principals also mentioned that one motive for a principal moving to the second school is that they had previously been posted to a school which was located at a distance from their previous districts. Thus, they had to make a lengthy commute to their school, which was considered ineffective. Surprisingly, it was also discovered that they were asked to move in order to provide the chance for a younger principal while they were moved to a new school which was more challenging and relevant to their wide experience. To principals, it is assumed that their successor would be able to lead the school effectively and that moving to another school would provide them with the positive motivation of helping a low-performing school that requires their wide knowledge and skills. In explaining this situation, Fidler et al. (2009) found that principals were prompted to move to another school for personal reasons in that they had completed the improvements and changes in their current school, and decided to move to another school. Thus, the findings of the study are inconsistent with findings from Fraser and Brock’s study (2006), which found that principals’ reasons for moving included feeling dissatisfied with their current school and feeling able to provide only limited contributions to their current schools.

As for the second element which explores senior principals’ options after completing their principalship journeys, senior principals mentioned two major options, such as remaining at their current schools or being a leadership or principalship facilitator for novice principals. In terms of intention to remain at their current schools, some senior principals decided to remain as school principals until they reached their retirement phase because they have accustomed themselves to schools’ rules and regulations, procedures and culture—including teachers’ attitudes and behaviours. In fact, some of them revealed that they have recent initiatives and changes that they need to implement before they retired. Thus, these findings were consistent with previous studies by Reames et al. (2014) that some principals decided to remain at the same school because they believed that they still have a crucial duty to enhance their school’s capacity related to teachers’ and students’ capabilities and a feeling of enjoyment of the principal’s post and roles.

However, others indicated a preference for becoming a school leadership consultant or a facilitator at the State Department of Education (SDE) or at a public university in order to avoid feelings of stagnation (Fidler et al., 2009). Indeed, some of the principals were quite interested to be part of the MOE’s Residency Prime programme, which links novice and senior principals through informal mentoring programmes. In this sense, Ingate (2006) claimed that in the final phase of their leadership journey, some principals experienced boredom, which affected their work satisfaction, as most of them believed that they had achieved their optimum objective as a school principal. Previous studies on principalship career trajectories have also indicated that, in the last stage, principals start to think about their life stages with various emotions; some continue to become more committed and yet feel discouragement, stagnation and a loss of enthusiasm (Wai-Bing and Omar, 2014), and experience a decline and suffer from withdrawal symptoms (Ingate, 2006). In this qualitative study, the findings have two pertinent multifunction contributions towards the study of principalship. Firstly, the findings contribute to the literature on the principalship journey. Secondly, the findings will also help the educational authorities in creating the consultant post of senior principalship for principals after they have completed the senior principalship post.

Certain limitations in this study are also acknowledged. Firstly, the exploration typically used semi-structured interviews; there has been some criticism regarding the accuracy of the data obtained from such interviews. Hence, it is strongly suggested that a mixed-methods paradigm should be employed in filling the gap to compensate for the weaknesses of the interview data collection techniques. In addition, another data collection technique—observation—should be added to provide more reliable values and in-depth data to verify the accuracy and to enhance the validity and credibility of the data collected from interviews (Bryman, 2012). In terms of sampling, this study interviewed nine principals as subjects to investigate their leadership journeys and their succession planning. Hence, it is essential to review this, as by increasing the numbers of subjects, more rich and saturated data will be obtained to provide and represent the principalship issues in the Malaysian context. Thirdly, as already mentioned, this study involved nine principals. To represent the whole Malaysian principal cohort, it is proposed that the study should be expanded to give an overview of Malaysian principalship, as this might reveal significantly different patterns in terms of principals’ purposes and intentions.

In conclusion, it is noted that principals in Malaysia need to be adequately prepared for any decision by the central office to move and appoint them as a principal at their new school for various official reasons. To principals who are widely experienced, some had decided to remain as school principals at their current school, whereas some were considering another related career, such as a leadership consultant, where they could share and disseminate their knowledge and skills to their younger counterparts, something which should be warmly acknowledged.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by Research University Grant, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia [Grant Number: QJ130000.2351.16H75].

References

Béteille

Kalogrides

Loeb

(2012) Stepping stones: Principal career paths and school outcomes. Social Science Research 41:904–919.

Boyatzis

(1998) Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Boyce

Bowers

(2016) Principal turnover: Are there different types of principals who move from or leave their schools. A latent class analysis of the 2007–2008 schools and staffing survey and the 2008–2009 principal follow-up survey. Leadership and Policy at Schools 15(3):237–272.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):77–101.

Brock

Fraser

(2001) Principals and pastors sharing school leadership: Perspectives from Nebraska and New South Wales. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice 5(1):85–100.

Bryk

Sebring

Allensworth

Luppescu

Easton

(2010) Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bryman

(2012) Social Research Methods (4th edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cushing

Kerrins

Johnstone

(2003) Disappearing principals. Leadership 32(5):28.

Durow

Brock

(2004) The retention and attrition of Catholic school principals. Journal of Catholic Education 8(2):194–207.

10.

Earley

Baker

Weindling

(1995) Trapped in post. Managing Schools Today 4(9):30–31.

11.

Fidler

Jones

(2005) Second principalship: Second time around or new learning experiences. Management in Education 19(1):12–16.

12.

Fidler

Jones

MacBurnie

Makori

Boparai

(2006) Second headship: Challenge and revitalization. A research report. Nottingham: National College of School Leadership and the University of Reading.

13.

Fidler

Jones

Makori

(2009) Extending the career of the English primary school headteacher: A second principalship. Journal of Educational Administration 47(4):435–451.

14.

Fraser

Brock

(2006) Catholic school principal job satisfaction: Keys to retention and recruitment. Journal of Catholic Education 9(4):425–440.

15.

Grissom

Susanna

(2011) Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal 48(5):1091–1123.

16.

Hallinger

(2013) A conceptual framework for systematic reviews of research in educational leadership and management. Journal of Educational Administration 51(2):126–149.

17.

Hertling

(2001) Retaining principals. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene, Oregon.

18.

Ingate

(2006) Should I stay or should I go? Perspectives on middle headship. Nottingham: National College of School Leadership.

19.

Kearney

Valdez

Garcia

(2012) Leadership for the long-haul: The impact of leadership longevity on student achievement. School Leadership Review 7(2):24–33.

20.

Kochan

Spencer

(1999) Preparing leaders for tomorrow’s schools: The practitioners’ perspectives. Research in the Schools 6(1):9–16.

21.

Lavigne

Shakman

Zweig

Greller

(2016) Principals’ time, tasks, and professional development: An analysis of schools and staffing survey data. REL 2017-201. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands.

22.

Leithwood

Sun

(2012) The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly 48(3):387–423.

23.

Loeb

Kalogrides

Horng

(2010) Principal preferences and the unequal distribution of principals across schools. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis 32:205–229.

24.

Miles

Huberman

Saldana

(2014) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

25.

Sun

Rorrer

(2015) Principal turnover: Upheaval and uncertainty in charter schools? Educational Administration Quarterly 51(3):409–437.

26.

Papa

(2007) Why do principals change schools? A multivariate analysis of principal retention. Leadership and Policy in Schools 6(3):267–290.

27.

Papa

Baxter

(2005) Dispelling the myths and confirming the truths of the imminent shortage of principals: The case of New York State. Planning and Changing 36(4):217–234.

28.

Plecki

Elfers

Wills

(2017) Examining retention, mobility, and career patterns of principals and assistant principals. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the Association for Education Finance and Policy Washington, DC, March.

29.

Reames

Kochan

Zhu

(2014) Factors influencing principals’ retirement decisions: A southern US perspective. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(1):40–60.

30.

Saldaña

(2009) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

31.

Scarpa

(2005) Principals need more guidance for success. District Administration 21(5):17.

32.

Sheppard

(2010) Determining factors that influence high school principal turnover over a five year period. Unpublished EdD dissertation, The University of North Texas.

33.

Tekleselassie

Villarreal

III (2011) Career mobility and departure intentions among school principals in the United States: Incentives and disincentives. Leadership and Policy in Schools 10(3):251–293.

34.

Wai-Bing

Omar

(2014) Leadership, career growth and socialisation paths of Malaysian public school managers. Journal of Contemporary Issues and Thought 4:107–124.

35.

Weindling

Earley

(1987) Secondary Headship: The First Years. Windsor: NFER Nelson.

36.

Whittall

(2002) Principal retention and patterns in a cross-section of New Zealand rural school, May 1990–May 2000. Research reports, Christchurch College of Education, New Zealand.

37.

Young

Fuller

(2009) Tenure and retention of newly hired principals in Texas. University Council for Educational Administration, Department of Educational Administration, University of Texas at Austin.

38.

Zellner

Ward

McNamara

Gideon

Camacho

Edgewood

(2002) The loneliest job in town: Sculpting the recruitment and retention of the principal. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin, Texas.