What new (and all) school administrators need

www.acsa.org

Research You Can Use

May 27, 2024

Heidi Hulse Mickelsen completed her Doctorate in Educational Leadership from USC in May 2023. The following is a summary of her dissertation titled, “The Influence of Preparation, Mentoring, Evaluation, and District Infrastructure on Secondary Assistant Principal Job Satisfaction and Outcomes.”

Effective school leadership is one of the most important factors in improving student achievement, retaining excellent teachers and strengthening school climate (Allensworth et al., 2009; Grissom et al., 2021; Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010). Unfortunately, recent studies have revealed a lack of consistent mentorship, training and evaluation of school leaders (Barnett et al., 2012; Goldring et al., 2009; Oleszewski et al., 2012) as well as an increase in administrator burnout and turnover (Beausaert et al., 2016; Tekleselassie & Villereal, 2011). Given their importance, what can be done to help retain and support these essential school leaders?

This mixed-methods, phenomenological study involved a survey of 756 secondary principals and assistant principals (APs) in four Bay Area counties. Ninety (12 percent) of the surveys were returned, and 14 follow-up qualitative interviews were conducted. The researcher analyzed the quantitative data to find correlations between the variables in the surveys, and coded the qualitative interviews based on the four key aspect

s of the research: preparation, mentoring, evaluation and district infrastructure.

The initial survey and interview questions were related to burnout and work-life balance. Forty-three percent of the 90 survey respondents rated their level of burnout as “high.” The primary contributors to administrator burnout were the lack of preparation and training, the lack of district support, negative relationships with one’s principal (for APs), isolation, student violence and the current teacher shortage. The interview questions focused on uncovering which aspects of the school administrator’s training and work experience were most helpful in reducing burnout and increasing retention and support.

Preparation

The majority of interviewees expressed that their preparation program was minimally helpful; most of their knowledge and skills came through on-the-job experience. Those previously holding leadership roles as teachers felt much more prepared than their peers. The majority of interviewees expressed a need for specific training on topics that were not adequately covered in their formal preparation programs, including special education, budgets and finance, discipline, Ed Code and supporting English learners.

Mentorship

New school administrators, typically assistant principals, are paired with an outside mentor as part of their two-year credential induction program. Seventy-nine percent of APs agreed that these mentors provided information that supported them in their new roles. New assistant principals also expected to be mentored by their principals, but that seemed more a factor of principal personality and inclination rather than due to a structured support system. Assistant principals who had strong, positive relationships with their principals felt like they could go to their principal with questions or problems and reported positive job satisfaction. The majority of interviewees who had a negative first year also reported negative experiences with their principals and did not feel like they had consistent, effective mentoring.

Feedback and evaluation

While teachers in California have a formal system of evaluation, administrators do not. New administrators interviewed expressed that receiving positive (informal) feedback from either their principal or teachers at their site was extremely important to their sense of job satisfaction. Forty-one percent of the APs surveyed were not formally evaluated during their first year. Most of those APs evaluated said that the process, conducted by their principals, was “just a checklist” or “a formality.” The majority of administrators (83 percent) surveyed were not involved in the evaluation of their principals as APs, despite the fact that the APs are those who work most closely with their principals. Most administrators interviewed believed that the evaluation process should consist of feedback from all stakeholders: other administrators, teachers and parents in addition to the formal supervisor.

District infrastructure

The researcher used the term “district infrastructure” to refer to the way that a district is structured in terms of hiring, mentoring, training, evaluating and retaining school administrators. The survey response analysis confirmed that strong district support was positively correlated with high job satisfaction, and this was mirrored in the interviewees’ responses. Only about half of respondents (51 percent) believed that their district had an accurate knowledge of whether they were good school leaders since district leaders were rarely at their sites. There was also concern around the practice of moving ineffective or toxic principals to the district office or to other sites instead of removing them. Assistant principals also felt like there was little effort on the part of the district to invest in their training or mentoring because the AP role is considered to be a temporary position.

Administrators in Title I schools

The research data distinguished administrators working in Title I from those in non-Title I schools. Administrators in Title I schools had a significantly harder experience due to a higher level of behavior incidents, student trauma (usually due to poverty) and the need to support students who were below grade level in terms of academic performance. Title I administrators also reported much higher proportions of their time spent on student discipline and supervision, and the APs who reported negative or toxic principals all worked for Title I schools.

Conclusions/recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made to increase job satisfaction, retention and accountability for school administrators:

Overhaul and rebuild the system for administrator preparation so that it is consistent across all programs and includes training vital to this role. The process should also include a six-month paid internship under a qualified principal to provide hands-on training prior to being immersed in the myriad and complex duties required of school administrators.
Hold principals accountable for mentoring and providing regular feedback to new (and all) assistant principals. There should be a weekly mentoring meeting scheduled and overseen by a district administrator to ensure that new administrators receive support, feedback and training that prepare them to be successful in their new role.
Develop a standardized, multi-rater evaluation system for California administrators based on a variety of measures that extend beyond the California Professional Standards for Education Leaders (CPSELs) and/or a goal-setting form. This would inform district leaders about the performance of their site leaders and provide a system of checks and balances for ineffective or negative principals.
Consider implementing term cycles of three or four years for site principals. Currently, principals can “coast” in their role for years, provided that no grievances or lawsuits force their resignations. Districts could also consider hiring co-principals to reduce AP turnover and increase the training and experience APs receive, thereby making them more prepared for leadership roles in the district.
Increase funding to Title I districts to enable them to hire additional site administrators due to the greater burdens of increased behavioral incidents and the need for additional supports for English learners and students experiencing poverty.
Encourage or require district administrators to make routine visits to school sites and conduct formal and informal staff interviews to assess the strengths and weaknesses of programs and personnel, including administrators. This would also reduce the “us versus them” mentality that often exists between site and district employees, and help teachers and site leaders feel seen and valued.

Administrators need a consistent, uniform procedure for development, feedback, evaluation and retention similar to that which is in place for teachers. Effective school leadership is second only to classroom instruction in factors that influence student success (Leithwood, 2004), which requires prioritizing the mentorship, evaluation and support of all school administrators.

Heidi Hulse Mickelsen has been an educator for over 20 years in a variety of capacities and is currently an assistant principal at Central Middle School in San Carlos School District, in the San Francisco Bay area. Mickelsen is passionate about closing the opportunity gap; developing positive, effective systems that improve outcomes for staff and students; and creating consistent systems of training, feedback, and district accountability to better support all school administrators.

FYI

Dissertation Rules

Research You Can Use is a periodic feature of EdCal that provides an opportunity for ACSA members to share their dissertation research. Publication of these summaries does not represent endorsement by ACSA of any specific program, policy or strategy. Dissertation summaries written by ACSA members in the past five years are welcome, along with a photograph of the researcher and present job title and location. If you have recent research to share, prepare a two-to-three page summary (750-1,200 words), including vital statistics and conclusions. Email summary and photo to Michelle Carl, EdCal editor, mcarl@acsa.org.