An investigation of P-12 school administrator stress in South Dakota

Abstract

Stress is a demand made between the adaptive ability of the mind and body and the experience and resources available to cope with those demands and has become an epidemic in society and notably in educational settings. With the growing emphasis of overall wellbeing of students, few studies have focused on those who are in charge of the wellbeing of those students: school administrators. This study aimed to identify factors that impact stress in P-12 (Preschool-Grade 12) school administrators in South Dakota by administering the Administrative Survey Index (ASI). A total of N = 253 school administrators completed the survey. Initial results indicate that administrative constraints, interpersonal relations, and intrapersonal conflicts were the greatest sources of stress. Additionally, the degree to which an ASI item was a source of stress varied by administrators’ gender, occupational title, and grade range of students. The findings are discussed and future directions for research are presented.

Keywords

stress school administration ASI leadership P-12 education

Introduction

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the Institute of Education Services was established to collect, analyze, and report educational activities and data within the United States (Goldring and Taie, 2018). Directed by the US Census Bureau, this data is used to assist with the decision-making process of the US states and their local educational systems (Goldring and Taie, 2018). One such report within the NCES is the 2016–2017 Principal Follow-up Survey which is a descriptive model of public K-12 schools in the United States and is used to understand principal attrition and movement within the country (Goldring and Taie, 2018). Results of the survey indicated that in 2015–2016, 6% of US public school principals found similar jobs at other schools, 10% did not remain in the school principal role, and 2% of schools reported the principal was no longer an employee of the district; however, the school was unable to indicate where these individuals were currently employed (Goldring and Taie, 2018). These results suggest that approximately 18% of school principals leave the position nationwide each academic school year (Goldring and Taie, 2018).

Over the last decade, increasing awareness for mental health and overall wellbeing throughout society has been on the rise. Trends such as establishing a growth mindset, the power of positivity, and focusing on self-care are a few initiatives that society has been focusing on to improve mental health and wellbeing. For example, each October the United Nations celebrates The World Mental Health Month to unify individuals surrounding mental health concerns through an empathetic lens (United Nations, n.d.). Each week during the month is dedicated to different mental health topics and lends an opportunity for individuals to discuss mental health for example, self-care and wellbeing, supporting others with mental health conditions, and ensuring everyone has availability to mental health resources and support (United Nations, n.d.). In addition, Mental Health Awareness Month occurs each May in the United States, with the support of various organizations such as the National Alliance on Mental Illness. The goal of the awareness month is to recognize and raise awareness about mental health through education, advocacy, and reducing the stigma around mental health (National Alliance on Mental Illness, n.d.).

Before the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic, the quality of mental health care for students was a cause of concern as schools were not hiring enough school-based mental health professionals to meet the needs of their students (U.S. Department of Education, 2023). As a result of this and the increased understanding that students learn, feel safer, and trust others more when their social and emotional needs are being met, in February 2023, the US Department of Education awarded over $188 million for 30 states to hire approximately 5400 school-based mental health professionals and build a mental health identity in schools and communities in the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 2023).

As these efforts demonstrate, educational systems in the United States are adjusting their curricula to meet the mental health needs of their students notably through social-emotional learning (SEL). SEL is now becoming a fundamental aspect in our educational system as schools support students with emotional recognition, forming healthy relationships with friends and school staff and faculty, and decision-making skills (Oberle et al., 2016). SEL programs are administered in a variety of educational settings, both within individual classrooms and wider, more collaborative efforts involving several school faculty and staff, parents, and other key stakeholders. Whole school approaches (Oberle et al., 2016), such as these collaborative efforts, are accomplished through research-based curriculum and activities. SEL curricula and activities can be provided with the help of organizations such as the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning that partners with schools to support the SEL development of students through mindfulness, social responsibility, and reflection projects and activities (Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning, n.d.). The establishment of these student supports is determined by school administrators such as the building principals, assistant principals, district special services directors, and superintendents.

Traditionally, school administrators have worn a variety of hats within their roles and their job responsibilities take many forms (DeWitt, 2020; Iremeka et al., 2021). These responsibilities tend to add to the stress levels of administrators and make creating an adequate work–life balance challenging, which can lead to burnout (Iremeka et al., 2021; Karakose et al., 2014). The focus on only student mental health and wellbeing is changing and expanding to include that of teachers and school administrators. Understanding the causes of school administrator stress would allow for a better understanding of their needs and how to meet those needs, thus meeting the needs of their students, staff, and faculty.

While some research regarding school administrator stress in the United States exists (Sogunro, 2012), these studies are minimal in number and none have focused their attention on the school administrators within a rural, Midwestern state within the United States, such as South Dakota. Similar concerns and findings regarding school administrator stress, however, can be found globally. Murphy (2019) noted the impact of stress on secondary school administrators in the Republic of Ireland, with emphasis on the lack of data by which these stress levels can be fully analyzed. Additionally, a recent quantitative study by Burke et al. (2022) showed that close to 48% of the secondary school administrators surveyed admitted to experiencing “a lot of stress” (p. 115), while close to 40% more participants in this survey reported “moderate” stress (p. 115).

In addition to these studies, Adams and Muthiah (2020) conducted a literature review regarding the challenges school principals face in the 21st century, and Denecker (2019) reviewed the different causes of stress of school principals on an international level. Several challenges of school principals were identified and sentiments of stress were echoed throughout. For example, Adams and Muthiah (2020) found that principals in Kenya, Bangladesh, Turkey, and the United States lack the vision, training, and knowledge to effectively lead their schools. Additionally, in Turkey, principals are challenged to find time to correct unsought student behavior, such as smoking and drug use. The lack of institutional policies does not allow these school administrators to punish the students appropriately (Adams and Muthiah, 2020). These results are echoed in the state of North Dakota located in the United States as school principals spend most of their time concerned with student discipline and management. This then forces them to neglect other tasks, resulting in increased school administrator stress levels (Adams and Muthiah, 2020). Adams and Muthiah (2020) also noted in the state of Virginia in the United States school principals indicated that they struggle to manage their time effectively due to all of their responsibilities which causes stress. Principals in New Zealand, Australia, and England believed their stress was related to the overbearing amount of work and the isolation that stems from it (Denecker, 2019). Similarly, in the state of Maine in the United States, 85% of principals believe their job was stressful based on the demands which also led to isolation and burnout (Denecker, 2019). In fact, 46% of school principals in British Columbia reported that they thought about leaving their job as a school principal in the last year due to the amount of stress they were encountering (Denecker, 2019).

Literature review

Stress is a demand made between the adaptive ability of the mind and body and the experience and resources readily available to cope with those demands and has become an epidemic in society (Moody and Barrett, 2009; Perry, 2016; Mahfouz and Gordon, 2021). Stress can be related to anxiety, frustration, strain, conflict and tension within the individual who perceives the event as stressful, and it is the leading cause of educator work related illness and an overwhelming 12.8 million working days are lost due to stress annually (Perry, 2016). School administrators are often looked at as the primary leader of a school setting while being expected to sacrifice work–life balance and boundaries for the success of this setting (DeMatthews et al., 2021; DeWitt, 2020). As a result, research shows overall stress levels tend to be higher within school administrators as compared to individuals within the general population (Riley, 2018). Experiences with stress vary across individuals, and for school administrators, stress can be the result of many different factors (DeMatthews et al., 2021; Koohsar and Bonab, 2011). Various causes of work-related stress, including workload, long work hours required daily and weekly, lack of autonomy in decision making, and difficult situations involving students, families, and staff, make the school administrators’ job that much more challenging (DeMatthews et al., 2021; DeWitt, 2020). School administrators are the face of educational systems, as human-service institutions, which means their work requires them to manage the multiple dimensions simultaneously and smoothly (DeMathews et al., 2021).

School administrators are required to maintain consistent engagement with a plethora of individuals not only in the school and district but in the community as well, all of whom have different interests and expectations in mind (Beisser et al., 2014, Harding, 2016). School administrators are deemed effective when it comes to continuous school improvement (DeMathews et al., 2021). However, school administrators now more than ever encounter responsibilities that they never anticipated and are expected to be selfless while putting the students’ needs first (Perry, 2016). Indeed, in-service workshops, seminars, and/or conferences may be able to assist school administrators in managing their stress; however, smaller rural school districts, such as those in South Dakota, have limited budgets that cannot afford such opportunities, leaving school administrators to find their own self-help (Moody and Barrett, 2009).

Burnout syndrome is recognized as a state of mental and physical exhaustion caused by an individual's professional life, and burnout describes multidimensional job-related stress as a condition of emotional fatigue, depersonalization, and diminished accomplishment that can occur among individuals who work in the helping professions and may be regarded as an occupational and mental hardship that affects an individual's personal and professional wellbeing (DeMatthews et al., 2021; Mahfouz and Gordon, 2021). When burnout occurs, individuals no longer care about their job, as their personal resources do not outweigh the demands caused by the job (Mahfouz and Gordon, 2021). When discrepancies between school district expectations for overall school performance and the resources allocated to meet these needs exist, school administrator burnout rates increase (DeMatthews et al., 2021; Kim, 2022; Mahfouz and Gordon, 2021; OBryan, 2019). Burnout may be correlated to an organization's expectations, for example, workload, control, reward, community, fairness, and values (DeMatthews et al., 2021). Constant teacher turnover, increased demands from the central office, school board, and other stakeholders, student discipline issues, expectations for school administrators to work tirelessly and selflessly for the betterment of the school, a resulting lack of work–life balance, and limited to no resources dedicated to the mental and physical health of school administrators results in physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion, leading to burnout (DeMatthews et al., 2021; Luongo, 2021). School administrators may also become emotionally exhausted as their resources diminish (DeMatthews et al., 2021; Kim, 2022; Mahfouz and Gordon, 2021; OBryan, 2019). Additionally, job variables that may lead to burnout include work overload, control or lack of it, not being recognized for rewards, unjust treatment, and conflicting values, as well as pressure to succeed (Mahfouz and Gordon, 2021). School administrators encounter a great deal of pressure to succeed by ensuring high student achievement, encouraging effective teaching practices, and developing safe, positive learning environments, which carries challenges and varying job demands (Beissier et al., 2014; Harding 2016). The increased burnout experienced by school administrators influences their decision to leave school leadership and the field of education (Kim, 2022).

Gender differences can influence and affect interaction between the cause, reaction, coping, and consequences of stress as gender may affect the perceptions of stressors thus creating different responses to them (Perry, 2016). According to Diotaiuti et al. (2020), women school administrators indicate considerably elevated amounts of stress than men. This stress may be a result of several attributes such as women being more inclined to engage in multiple tasks at once which can be overwhelming (Diotaiuti et al., 2020). Studies indicate women have greater quantities of stress than men, which may be a result of women having an increased work and life balance as they are a major source in childcare and domestic plans, all the while having a better understanding and willingness to discuss stress (Oplatka and Atias, 2007; Robinson and Shakeshaft, 2015; Suleman et al., 2018). In addition, women school administrators state larger feelings of stress due to task-based activities with inadequate management training along with the pressure of student performance, interpersonal problems with other administrators, and resource sharing (Perry, 2016). Suleman et al. (2018) found that while both male and female secondary school administrators had similar overall stress levels from their roles, female secondary school administrators displayed higher stress levels regarding conflict within their role, role ambiguity, and working conditions.

Significance of the study

According to Perry (2016), school administrators are faced with more daily stress than ever in today's educational system which affects their professional and personal lives. It is imperative to examine the school administrators stress and reasons for such as they are the leaders of the school district who are tasked with making several important decisions on a regular basis. These decisions will have an impact, whether positive or negative, that affects themselves and the wellbeing of their staff, faculty, students and their families, and communities alike. If the stress and reasons behind them are not investigated, then the wellbeing of many may be negatively affected both in the present and future. As Perry (2016) noted, the stress of school administration may cause a hostile work environment, a longing to isolate, and/or misdirected anger at work and at home. As a result, this study aimed to identify factors that impact stress in P-12 school administrators with the notion of a future study investigating the potential resources available to assist school administrators cope with the stress.

Methodology

The purpose of this quantitative, survey research study was to identify factors that impact stress in P-12 school administrators in South Dakota. The study utilized a survey to collect and analyze quantitative results. The guiding question for this study was: What are the major sources of stress reported by South Dakota P-12 school administrators and do these sources vary by demographic factors?

Participants

Participants for this study included school administrators from public, private, tribal, and state special school districts across the state of South Dakota. According to the US Census Bureau, South Dakota, a sparsely populated state, is located in the West North Central Division of the Midwest Region of the United States (Census Regions and Divisions of the United States, n.d.). The West North Central Division contains seven (7) states consisting of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota and the Midwest Region encompasses these seven states as well as Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin (Census Regions and Divisions of the United States, n.d.). Northern State University is a public institution governed by the South Dakota Board of Regents (South Dakota Board of Regents) and located in Aberdeen, South Dakota which is situated in Brown County of the James River Valley region of South Dakota (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.).

Inclusion criteria required school administrators to be currently working in a P-12 school within South Dakota and hold one of the following administrative positions: (a) superintendents, (b) principals, (c) special education directors, and (d) dean of students. Participants were identified by accessing the South Dakota Department of Education's educational directory to ensure that the sampling criteria were met. In total, 897 school administrators in 217 school districts were recruited for this study.

Instruments

Quantitative researchers are interested in understanding population demographics, examining attitudes and beliefs, and measuring how individuals utilize a service (Goertzen, 2017). As a result, this study utilized the Administrative Stress Index (ASI) developed by Gmelch and Swent (1977) due to its reliability and validity to collect and analyze data (Allison, 1995). The ASI provides information regarding the occupational stress of school administrators and utilizes a five-point Likert scale: 1 = rarely or never bothers me, 3 = occasionally bothers me, and 5 = frequently bothers me (Allison, 1995). The ASI contains 35 questions organized into 5 categories, including: (a) administrative constraints (inadequate time, meetings, and rule stressors); (b) administrative responsibilities (managerial tasks for example, supervision); (c) interpersonal relations (resolving conflicts among school community); (d) interpersonal conflicts (beliefs and expectations of performance); and (e) role expectations (self-expectations) (Gmelch and Swent, 1977). With survey author permission, 19 questions were added by the researchers for a total of 54 survey questions. The additional 19 questions gathered information regarding variables that the literature suggests is important to consider in examinations of stress, such as gender, race/ethnicity, highest degree attained, occupational title, P-12 grade level(s), years of experience, number of schools, number of faculty/staff, number of students, hours worked per week, days absent due to illness, and self-perceived level of health. An informed consent form was included at the beginning of the survey, which described the contents of the survey, the potential benefits and risks, an assurance of confidentiality, and the researchers’ contact information should the participants have any questions or concerns.

Data collection

Email addresses of the participants were collected from the South Dakota Department of Education's educational directory. Following IRB approval, a message including a hyperlink for the Qualtrics survey was initially emailed to participants on December 7, 2022. Reminder emails were sent on December 19, 2022, and January 5, 2023, respectively. Email addresses were removed from the remaining emails if the researchers received an email stating that the email address was invalid or if school administrators declined the participation opportunity. The survey was closed on January 20, 2023, and data were exported into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet in preparation for analysis.

Data analysis

Descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated using R. Measures of center and variability were calculated for continuous demographic variables and ASI items while frequencies and percentages were calculated for discrete demographic variables. Composite variables were constructed from ASI items aligned with the five categories specified by Gmelch and Swent (1977) and for the overall ASI score. Cronbach's alpha was used as an indicator of internal consistency reliability, using ɑ ≥ .70 as an acceptable level of internal consistency (Kline, 1999). Additionally, Pearson's chi-squared tests were performed to explore differences in participants’ responses on ASI items based on differential demographic information (e.g. gender, title, grade range, etc.). For statistically significant chi-squared tests (p < .05), post hoc analyses with Bonferroni correction were performed to determine the specific contingency table cells in which statistically significant differences occurred. Lastly, independent, two-tailed t tests or one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to explore significant differences (p < .05) in composite variable values based on differential demographic information. For statistically significant ANOVAs, Tukey-Kramer post hoc tests were performed to determine which categories were statistically significant from others. The assumptions of all inferential statistics were examined and only the tests for which all assumptions were met have been included in this report.

Limitations

With any research study, limitations exist and should be addressed. Quantitative research is only applicable for measurable phenomena, and due to the structured nature of the survey utilized, limited outcomes and explanations for the data collected existed, even with a Likert scale. This research dealt with school administrator stress levels and was completed in what many have determined to be a “post-COVID” time period; however, no questions were asked regarding the potential impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on school administrator stress levels over the past 3 years. The decision to exclude questions specifically referencing the COVID-19 pandemic was made in an attempt to retain the original constructs measured by the ASI. If the COVID-19 pandemic were explicitly referenced, it is possible that school administrators may have responded to each ASI item differently. Rather than gaining school administrators’ sources of stress in general, respondents may have viewed each ASI item through the lens of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, COVID-19 was not included in this study as a distinct variable of interest.

The present study has several limitations which should be noted. The primary limitation is the sample size and generalizability of the results as only school administrators from South Dakota were utilized for the study. In addition, the study was voluntary, which limits the number of surveys completed. As with survey research, results are indicated by self-reporting data which causes subjective results and the question of honesty. For example, there is no way to indicate if the school administrator(s) within the building completed the survey by themselves or with other school administrator's colleagues which may create a bias in their answers. Thus, this study assumed that survey respondents were currently employed as school administrators and responded honestly based on their own experiences. Lastly, this initial analysis utilized multiple chi-squared tests, t tests, and ANOVAs in order to provide a first look at the data and inform future analyses. When implementing multiple inferential tests, error terms compound which increases the probability of committing type I error and relationships among variables is not appropriate. Analyzing the data using methods that include all relevant variables in a single model (e.g. structural equation modeling, multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), multivariate multiple linear regression) may produce different results and potentially different interpretations of the findings.

Results

Of the 897 recruited participants, 253 completed the ASI (28.2%). Due to missing data, listwise deletion was utilized to construct the final sample of N = 220. The sample for this study was primarily male (n = 127, 57.7%), White (n = 209, 95.0%), and held either a master's (n = 79, 35.9%) or educational specialist (n = 74, 33.6%) degree. Over half of the sample were employed as either a principal or assistant principal (n = 129, 58.6%), while others were either a superintendent or assistant superintendent (n = 53, 24.1%) or a variety of other administrative positions (e.g. director of special education, dean of students, etc.). Most administrators worked with students in grades P-12 (n = 93, 42.3%) but some worked only with students in grades 6–12 (n = 65, 29.6%) or P-8 (n = 62, 28.2%). As shown in Table 1, administrators in this sample had about 11 years of administrative experience on average; were generally responsible for about 300–725 students, 20–25 staff/faculty evaluations, and 1–2 schools; worked an average of 53hours per week; used about 1 sick day in the first half of the academic year; and perceived their current health to be about average. It is worth noting that Table 1 provides both the mean (M) and median (Mdn) for each variable, as some variables included extreme outliers which inflated mean values (e.g. numbers of students in the school). Thus, the median is a more appropriate measure of center for the variables with high standard deviation (SD) values.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of continuous demographic variables.

Variable	M	Mdn	SD
Years of school administrative experience	11.57	10.00	8.18
Years at current school	9.90	7.00	8.84
Number of schools responsible for	2.63	1.00	4.33
Number of students responsible for	726.51	301.50	2030.34
Number of students in the school	889.27	400.00	2092.06
Number of staff/faculty responsible for evaluating	24.20	21.00	17.17
Number of staff/faculty in the school	106.46	50.00	279.89
Hours worked per week	53.44	55.00	9.40
Days of absence due to illness in current academic year	1.39	0.50	3.25
Current health	3.48	3.00	0.95

Note: “Current health” utilized a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = poor to 5 = high.

The ASI proved to be a reliable measure in this sample, achieving an internal consistency of ɑ = .94. As highlighted in Table 2, administrators reported the highest levels of stress on ASI items pertaining to administrative constraints while items describing administrative responsibility as a source of stress were rated the lowest. When examining individual ASI items, the highest sources of stress reported by administrators were: (1) imposing excessively high expectations on myself (M = 3.32, Mdn = 4, SD = 1.33); (2) trying to resolve parent/school conflicts (M = 3.11, Mdn = 3, SD = 1.18); (3) having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people that I know (colleagues, staff members, students, etc.) (M = 3.02, Mdn = 3, SD = 1.16); (4) feeling that I have too heavy a workload—one that I cannot possibly finish during the normal workday (M = 2.93, Mdn = 3, SD = 1.38); and (5) feeling I have to participate in school activities outside of normal working hours at the expense of my personal time (M = 2.89, Mdn = 3, SD = 1.42). Interestingly, though the administrative constraints composite variable had the highest mean score, the top three sources of stress were ASI items within the interpersonal conflicts and interpersonal relations composite variables. ASI items that were reported to be the lowest sources of stress included: (1) feeling not enough is expected of me by my superiors (M = 1.48, Mdn = 1, SD = .86); (2) being involved in the collective bargaining process (M = 1.70, Mdn = 1, SD = .94); and (3) speaking in front of groups (M = 1.81, Mdn = 1, SD = 1.05).

Table 2.

Internal consistency, mean, and standard deviation of ASI composite variables.

Composite variable	ɑ	M	SD
Administrative constraints	.84	2.56	.86
Interpersonal relations	.80	2.53	.80
Intrapersonal conflicts	.76	2.46	.75
Role expectations	.80	2.34	.83
Administrative responsibility	.71	2.16	.67

Note: Categories for composite variables are further described in Gmelch and Swent (1977). ASI: Administrative Survey Index.

Several themes emerged when examining ASI items by demographics variables. Chi-squared analyses of ASI items by gender revealed statistically significant differences between males and females, as a significantly larger proportion of females responded with frequently bothers me (5) on two ASI items: (a) imposing excessively high expectations on myself [Χ² (4, N = 220) = 10.23, p = .037] and (b) feeling that I have too heavy a workload—one that I cannot possibly finish during the normal workday [Χ² (4, N = 220) = 19.98, p < .001]. Similarly, a significantly smaller proportion of females responded with rarely or never bothers me (1) on one ASI item: feeling that I have too much responsibility delegated to me by my superior [Χ² (4, N = 220) = 14.88, p = .005]. More so, females’ overall ASI scores were significantly higher than males’ overall ASI scores [t(192.48) = 3.07, p = .002].

Interestingly, principals reported that several ASI items were lesser sources of stress when compared to superintendents and other administrators when analyzed with chi-squared tests. A significantly larger proportion of principals responded with rarely or never bothers me (1) on the following ASI items: (a) supervising and coordinating the tasks of many people [Χ² (8, N = 220) = 24.40, p = .002]; (b) imposing excessively high expectations on myself [Χ² (8, N = 220) = 17.21, p = .028]; (c) being involved in the collective bargaining process [Χ² (8, N = 220) = 53.85, p < .001]; (d) administering the negotiated contract (grievances, interpretations, etc.) [Χ² (8, N = 220) = 23.16, p = .003]; (e) being unclear on just what the scope and responsibilities of my job are [Χ² (8, N = 220) = 23.76, p = .003]; and (f) trying to resolve differences between/among staff members [Χ² (8, N = 220) = 16.44, p = .037]. A one-way ANOVA showed statistically significant differences in overall ASI scores by occupational title [F(2, 217) = 3.48, p < .001], but the only significant difference was that principals’ scores were lower than scores of other administrators (p < .001).

The final demographic variable for which statistically significant differences were observed in relation to ASI items was the grade range of students with which administrators worked. A significantly larger proportion of administrators who worked with students in grades 6–12 responded with rarely or never bothers me (1) on several ASI items, including: (a) preparing and allocating budget resources [Χ² (8, N = 220) = 19.62, p = .012]; (b) being involved in the collective bargaining process [Χ² (8, N = 220) = 42.67, p < .001]; (c) complying with state, federal, and organizational rules [Χ² (8, N = 220) = 23.34, p = .003]; (d) administering the negotiated contract (grievances, interpretations, etc.) [Χ² (8, N = 220) = 18.46, p = .018]; (e) trying to resolve differences between/among staff members [Χ² (8, N = 220) = 25.01, p = .002]; and (f) trying to influence my immediate supervisor's actions/decisions that affect me [Χ² (8, N = 220) = 17.10, p = .029]. Statistically significant differences in overall ASI scores by grade range were discovered with a one-way ANOVA [F(2, 217) = 7.39, p < .001], but the only significant difference was between administrators that worked with grades P-12 and those working with grades 6–12 (p < .001).

Discussion

Overall, administrators reported that topics related to administrative constraints, interpersonal relations, and intrapersonal conflicts were higher sources of stress. Specifically, the ASI items that were reported to be the greatest sources of stress were: (1) imposing excessively high expectations on myself, (2) trying to resolve parent/school conflicts, (3) having to make decisions that affect the lives of individual people that I know (colleagues, staff members, students, etc.), (4) feeling that I have too heavy a workload—one that I cannot possibly finish during the normal workday, and (5) feeling I have to participate in school activities outside of normal working hours at the expense of my personal time. ASI items related to administrative responsibility and role expectations were reported to be lesser sources of stress, with the lowest-ranked ASI items being: (1) feeling not enough is expected of me by my superiors, (2) being involved in the collective bargaining process, and (3) speaking in front of groups. While the top-ranked ASI items differ from Gmelch and Swent's (1977) analysis of administrators in Oregon, the top-ranked items in this sample are well-aligned with the analyses of both principals in British Columbia (Allison, 1995) and secondary principals in Minnesota (Perry, 2016). Though these samples (Allison, 1995; Perry, 2016) are not directly comparable to the sample in the present study, it seems that the primary sources of stress for school administrators have remained consistent for the past few decades—even amongst different states/countries. This apparent trend might suggest that efforts to diminish the impact of these sources of stress have not been successful. More so, when considering this trend in conjunction with international findings highlighted in the literature (Adams and Muthiah, 2020; Denecker, 2019) and the extremely high turnover rate of school administrators (Goldring and Taie, 2018), it is evident that this issue needs to be emphasized in the field of education. Since the literature appears to be somewhat consistent over the recent decades, perhaps new/different coping strategies and/or stress-management resources ought to be designed, implemented, and researched for efficacy.

In this study, significantly different responses to ASI items were observed based on respondents’ gender, occupational title, and grade range of students. While differential stress levels based on gender have been documented in other studies (Diotaiuti et al., 2020; Perry 2016; Suleman et al., 2018), little research has been conducted regarding how stress varies based on occupational title or the grade range of students with which administrators work. Due to the data analysis techniques utilized in this study, the rationale for these differences cannot be stated. Thus, further examinations of the data and replication studies may provide additional context to these findings.

Recommendations for future research

As these are preliminary results that indicate the stress levels of school administrators in South Dakota, further research should investigate a qualitative analysis of the participants to learn more about P-12 school administrators’ stressors, stress levels, and the potential resources available to them to cope with this stress. This information would be beneficial to help schools enhance and/or implement a support system for their school administrators and help make sense of the quantitative data we gathered through this preliminary research study. With a support system in place for the school administrators, it may be hypothesized that the stress of the school faculty, staff, and students will also reduce and create a more conducive environment for learning to take place. Additionally, this study could also be replicated in a state in a different region of the United States for example, Florida, to compare and contrast the results of administrator stress. Further research is also needed involving a larger sample of participants for a region of the United States such as the Upper Plains/Midwest where South Dakota is located. This may provide a more detailed picture of the types of stress these individuals encounter in and out of the workplace. Utilizing the data gathered from this preliminary research study, we plan to quantitatively analyze the data in a single model (e.g. structural equation modeling, MANCOVA, multivariate multiple linear regression) in order to more appropriately examine the relationships amongst variables. Ultimately, the goal of this research is to better understand P-12 school administrator stress and to compile resources that are currently available or would be helpful in mitigating the stress P-12 school administrators face on a daily basis.

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

ORCID iDs

Nicole Schutter

Christopher Puglisi

Author biographies

Nicole Schutter is an assistant professor of Education and Principal Preparation at Northern State University. She has K-8 teaching experience, elementary principal experience, and currently educates preservice teachers and principals. Her main research interests include teacher recruitment and retention, principal recruitment and retention, and rural teaching experiences.

Chris Puglisi is a lecturer in Counselor Education at Northern State University in Aberdeen, SD where he is educating future counselors in both the clinical and school counseling settings. He has worked as a school counselor in Western New York for 10 years in several general and special education settings. His main research interests are in survey methods, wellbeing, and animal-assisted interventions.

Monte Meyerink is an assistant professor of Elementary Education at Northern State University in Aberdeen, SD. He has taught mathematics to students in grades 5–12 in various settings and currently educates preservice teachers. His primary research interests include the preparation of teachers of mathematics, technology integration in the mathematics classroom, and research methodologies.

References

Adams

Muthiah

(2020) School principals and 21st century leadership challenges: A systematic review. Journal of Nusantara Studies 5(1): 189–210.

Allison

(1995) An investigation of administrative stress and coping in British Columbia elementary and secondary public school principals . Master’s Thesis, University of British Columbia, Canada.

Beisser

Peters

Thacker

(2014) Balancing passion and priorities: An investigation of health and wellness practices of secondary school principals. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin 98(3): 237–255.

Burke

Kinnarney

Salokangas

(2022) Split in all directions’: An exploration of the impact of wellbeing and daily responsibilities on post-primary school leaders’ perceived stress. School Leadership & Management 42(2): 110–125.

Census Regions and Divisions of the United States (n.d.) U.S. census bureau. Available at: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf (accessed 22 June 2023)

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) (n.d.) Program Guide. Available at: https://pg.casel.org/review-programs/ (accessed 22 June 2023).

DeMatthews

Corolla

Reyes

, et al. (2021) School leadership burnout and job-related stress: Recommendations for district administrators and principals. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 94(4): 159–167.

Denecker

(2019) School principals’ work stress in an era of new education governance. Swiss Journal of Sociology 45(3): 447–466.

DeWitt

(2020) We should be concerned about the mental health of principals. Available at: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-we-should-be-concerned-about-the-mental-health-of-principals/2020/08 (accessed 10 October 2022).

10.

Diotaiuti

Mancone

Bellizzi

, et al. (2020) The principal at risk: Stress and organizing mindfulness in the school context. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(17): 1–14.

11.

Encyclopedia Britannica (n.d.) Aberdeen, South Dakota. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/place/Aberdeen-South-Dakota (accessed 22 June 2023)

12.

Gmelch

Swent

(1977) Stress at the desk and how to creatively cope. Oregon School Study Council 21(4): 1–45. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED146698.pdf (accessed 17 October 2022).

13.

Goertzen

(2017) Introduction to quantitative research and data. Library Technology Reports 53(4): 12–18. Available at: https://journals.ala.org/index.php/ltr/article/view/6325/8274 (accessed 14 October 2022).

14.

Goldring

Taie

(2018) Principal attrition and mobility: Results from the 2016-2017 principal follow-up survey: First look. Report for the U.S. Department of Education. Report no. NCES 2018-066. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018066.pdf (accessed 18 October 2022).

15.

Harding

(2016) Helping school leaders find life balance. Leadership 45(4): 8–10.

16.

Iremeka

Ede

Amaeze

, et al. (2021) Improving work-life balance among administrative officers in Catholic primary schools: Assessing the effect of a Christian religious rational emotive behavior therapy. Medicine 100(24): Article e26361.

17.

Karakose

Kocabas

Yesilyurt

(2014) A quantitative study of school administrators’ work-life balance and job satisfaction in public schools. Pakistan Journal of Statistics 30(6): 1231–1241.

18.

Kim

(2022) Navigation to well-being and work-life balance for school principals: Mindfulness-based approaches. Health Behavior and Policy Review 9(2): 776–786.

19.

Kline

(1999) The handbook of psychological testing, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

20.

Koohsar

Bonab

(2011) Relation among quality of attachment, anxiety and depression in college students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 30: 212–215.

21.

Luongo

(2021) Rebounding from burnout. Schools: Studies in Education 18(1): 12–23.

22.

Mahfouz

Gordon

(2021) The case for focusing on school principals’ social-emotional competencies. Management in Education 35(4): 189–193.

23.

Moody

Barrett

(2009) Stress levels of school administrators and teachers in November and January. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal 7(2): 2–15.

24.

Murphy

(2019) A systematic review and thematic analysis of research on school leadership in the Republic of Ireland: 2008-2018. Journal of Educational Administration 57(6): 675–689.

25.

National Alliance on Mental Illness (n.d.) Mental health awareness month. Available at: https://www.nami.org/Get-Involved/Awareness-Events/Mental-Health-Awareness-Month (accessed 22 June 2023).

26.

Oberle

Domitrovich

Meyers

, et al. (2016) Establishing systemic social and emotional learning approaches in schools: A framework for schoolwide implementation. Cambridge Journal of Education 46(3): 277–297.

27.

OBryan

(2019) Work-related stress and coping strategies for elementary teachers. Culminating Projects in Education Administration and Leadership 62: 3–113.

28.

Oplatka

Atias

(2007) Gendered views of managing discipline in school and classroom. Gender and Education 19(1): 41–59.

29.

Perry

(2016) Stress and coping strategies among Minnesota secondary school principals . EdD Thesis, St. Cloud State University, USA. Available at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/edad_etds/13/ (accessed 15 October 2022).

30.

Riley

(2018) The Australian principal occupational health, safety and wellbeing survey. Report for the Australian Research Council Project. Report no. LP160101056. Available at: https://www.educatorhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2017_Report_AU_FINAL-compressed.pdf (accessed 23 October 2022).

31.

Robinson

Shakeshaft

(2015) Women superintendents who leave: Stress and health factors. Planning and Changing 46(3/4): 440–458.

32.

Suleman

Hussain

Jumani

(2018) Occupational stress among secondary school heads: A gender based comparative study. Journal of Education and Educational Development 5(2): 240–258.

33.

Sogunro

(2012) Stress in school administration: Coping tips for principals. Journal of School Leadership 22(3): 664–700.

34.

South Dakota Board of Regents (n.d.) The board of regents. Available at: https://www.sdbor.edu/the-board/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 22 June 2023)

35.

United Nations (n.d.) World mental health month. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/healthy-workforce/files/WMHMCalendar.pdf (accessed 22 June 2023).

36.

U.S. Department of Education (2023) U.S. department of education announces more than $188 million from bipartisan safer communities act to support mental health and student wellness. Available at: https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-announces-more-188-million-bipartisan-safer-communities-act-support-mental-health-and-student-wellness (accessed 27 August 2023)