by

Locked Bag 1/307

LAUNCESTON

TASMANIA 7250

Email Address: Margot.Boardman@utas.edu.au

Phone: 03 6324 3725

Fax: 03 6324 3048

Over the past decade, the role of the principal in education has been extensively discussed and researched with a multitude of titles presenting differing views on educational leadership. Authors such as Fullan (1991), Blasé & Blasé (1997), Grady, Macpherson, Mulford & Williamson (1994), Leithwood, Begley & Cousins (1994), Goldring & Sullivan (1996), Sergiovanni (1996), and Gamage (1998), to name a few, have made diverse contributions to this important area of educational leadership. The impact a school principal has on the educational provision within a school cannot be underestimated (Hallinger & Heck 1996), and principals need to be positive role models in leading others to become a significant part of an effective learning organization (Anderson 1998). Anderson (1998) elaborates on this role stating that the principal requires high-level skills in self-management, interpersonal communication, versatility skills, counseling and problem management, and consultative skills.

However, little has been written concerning the nature of the principal’s role in Kindergarten to Grade 2 (K-2) within primary and district high school settings.

Rodd (1998, p. 32) has completed writings in leadership and she asserts that early childhood education is a ‘people service’ and that central to a leaders’ role is "communication and interpersonal relationships (which) are the foundation or building blocks" on which education for young children is based. Consideration of research, including that of Fullan (1991), Leithwood et al. (1994) and Grady et al. (1994), confirms the pivotal importance of high level communication skills in all aspects of educational leadership. Further, Stamopoulos (1998, p. 27) states that "literature supports the need for school leaders to hold a deep knowledge of educational components in all areas in their school". Stamopoulos (1998) found, in her Western Australian study, that principals perceived early childhood education to be a specialized field requiring specific knowledge, curriculum, teaching style and classroom management which were different to those employed in primary school classrooms.

Further support for this premise comes from Rodd (1998) who contends that specific leadership skills in decision-making, conflict resolution, building and leading a team and working with parents and the community are vital for early childhood leaders, and indeed, for all primary school principals (Anderson 1998). Further information is added by Leithwood, Leonard and Sharratt (1998, p. 265) who found that principals set a leadership example by "working hard, having lots of energy, being genuine in their beliefs, modeling openness, having good people skills, and showing evidence of learning by growing and changing themselves".

Investigation of the important role principals play in K-2, within Tasmanian primary and district high schools, was undertaken in a study (Boardman 1999). K-2 teachers (N=245) and their principals (N= 30) were involved in the research project, which sought, through questionnaires, to compare the perceptions of respondents to seventeen statements related to the role of the principal in early childhood education. Furthermore, both groups were asked to list the primary leadership tasks principals undertook in relation to K-2 education within their schools. In planning this study, it was acknowledged that the role of the principal would alter and vary according to the size and resourcing allocations of each school. Nevertheless, it was seen that this would enable a greater depth and diversity of information to be gathered.

Seventeen statements were used, where principals, and their K-2 teachers were asked to rate, on a scale of 1(strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree), the effectiveness of the principal in relation to his/her leadership in K-2. The statements were specifically selected for the study from key survey tools, including the work of Leithwood & Aitken (1995), Grady et al. (1994), and from the Leadership in Organisational Learning and Student Outcomes project (1997), and Assisted School Self-Review (1998) tools. Statements related to school leadership in the areas of vision and team building, school and community relationships, as well as instructional and high performance leadership were included. Both positive and negative statements were included to minimize the possibility of respondents simply selecting the same response for all statements.

The mean scores and t test results from the principals’ and teachers’ responses, regarding the nature of the principals’ role in K-2 are shown in Table 1. Results indicate clear differences between how principals and teachers perceived the leadership role. The statement with the closest mean scores was 5 "empowers K-2 teachers to take on leadership roles, with the principals’ means score being 2.06 and the teachers’ mean being 2.01. This item (5), and two other statements 12 ("trusts K-2 teachers to teach effectively") and 15 ("not easily accessible to K-2 teachers"), were the only three statements, which failed to return a statistically significant results (Statement 5 = 0.83; Statement 12 = 020; Statement 15 = 0.22). All other statements had a very high degree of statistical significance, when responses from teachers and principals were compared, with teachers were far less satisfied with the role their principal played in K-2, than were the principals in this study.

Table 1: Teachers’ and leaders’ perceptions regarding the nature of the principal’s role in K-2

The most positively viewed aspect of the principal’s role was "trusts K-2 teachers to teach effectively" (Statement 12), where 95% of teachers rated this item in the strongly agree of agree categories. Further, the statement most frequently rated strongly agree by teachers was also Item 12. Statements 5 ("empowers K-2 teachers to take on leadership roles"), and 6 ("equally values contributions from all K-2 teachers"), were also seen as strength areas of the principal in K-2 education.

Principals perceived their leadership strength areas to be many, with six statements (6,7,12,13 & 17) of the positively stated items receiving a means score of 1.50 or lower. In addition, the statements "demonstrates shared decision-making with K-2 teachers" had 89% of principals rating it as strongly agree, whilst "empowers K-2 teachers to take on leadership roles" and "equally values contributions from all K-2 teachers", both had strongly agree responses from 79% of principals.

From this basic analysis it is evident that there are areas of agreement between teachers and principals in the aspects of valuing K-2 teachers equally, empowering K-2 teachers take on leadership roles, and trusting K-2 to teach effectively. The aspects of demonstrating trust and valuing teachers equally are central aspects of successful leadership (Bishop & Mulford 1996) and the congruence between teachers’ and principals’ views on these aspects is a positive result of K-2 leadership in this study. Overall, however, it would appear that principals have an inflated view of their K-2 leadership performance when comparisons of perceptions are made with early childhood teachers. Principals only had one positively stated item (5) with a mean score higher than 2.00 (agree response), which was 2.06 for "empowers K-2 teachers to take on leadership roles". All the remaining fifteen statements had mean scores between 1.11(for Statement 9) and 1.74 (for Statements 4 & 11).

In contrast to this, responding teachers indicated that they were less than satisfied with the effectiveness of the principals in the K-2 leadership role. Strongest dissent was noted in three positively stated items, with more than 50% of responding teachers recording a strongly disagree, or disagree rating to "provides information on current educational thought in early childhood education to K-2 teachers" (with 52% of teachers disagreeing); "possesses sound knowledge of what K-2 students need to learn" (with 52% of teachers disagreeing), and ""leads K-2 teachers by personal example" (52% disagreement). This is a disturbing set of perceptions, as all are related to the leadership in pedagogical matters. It is accepted that not all principals will have technical expertise in early childhood education, but more seriously it appears that principals in Boardman’s (1999) study, believed they were undertaking these tasks effectively as seen in their low mean scores for these items (Statement 2 = 1.63; Statement 4 = 1.74; Statement 16 = 1.56). Use of facilitative processes for professional development in technical matters for early childhood teachers is a common occurrence by Tasmanian principals, and in many cases is highly appropriate, with outside providers leading teachers’ learning. Further, it is a concern for those K-2 teachers who teach in smaller schools, as they would have no other member of senior staff to refer to regarding pedagogical issues, other than the principal. Teachers’ lack of confidence in the principal can only lead to credibility issues for the principal.

In this study, further enlightenment on the role a principal has in K-2 education was sought, through requesting that responding teachers and principals list the primary tasks a principal undertakes in leadership in the K-2 area of the school. For the purpose of accurately comparing principals’ and teachers’ responses, regarding the primary tasks undertaken by the principal in relation to K-2, responses were coded into five categories related to management tasks: Program; Personnel; Professional Development; School Policy/Curriculum; and General Operational. The frequencies, with which each responding group named primary tasks, are presented in Table 2.

A general, but important observation gained during the coding process, related to the detailed nature of the primary tasks listed by the principals. Provision for listing of seven tasks was allowed on the survey, and all principals, except one, utilized this space fully. Entries were diverse and comprehensively completed by the principals, whereas there were a group of 36 teachers who failed to list any tasks for their principals in K-2. Of these twelve teachers believed their principal had no primary leadership tasks in K-2, five said the tasks were unknown and nineteen teachers either put a cross, dash or left the designated section blank. Ten of the latter group of teachers had completed all other open-ended sections of the survey leaving little doubt that they held limited knowledge and understanding of the principal’s tasks in early childhood education. Comments received from teachers included "can’t think of a single task"; "none at ground level"; and "leadership tasks specific to ECE are unknown". Because, in Tasmanian schools, all principals have ultimate responsibility and thus leadership tasks across the entire school (K-6 or K-10), it would be anticipated that all K-2 teachers should be aware of some of the tasks a principal undertakes in K-2.

Table 2: Teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of the primary leadership tasks undertaken by the principal, in relation to K-2 education

Clear differences were evident between responding principals’ and teachers’ views on the principal’s leadership task in two response categories. These were management in the personnel (19.7% of teachers’ responses and 32.6% of principals’ responses) and program (11.7% of teachers’ responses and 1.2% of principals’ responses) categories. It was evident that teachers failed to understand the scope of the tasks a principal undertakes on teacher-related issues, as only 8.5% of teachers’ responses referred to this aspect. In contrast, principals (in 22.1% of their responses) listed teacher-related tasks as covering aspects such as personal and curriculum support, as well as supervision of teachers and other K-2 leaders. Principals specifically mentioned, "daily liaising with teachers", and "day-to-day troubleshooting on teacher-related matters". Furthermore, teachers (12.2% of responses) placed far greater emphasis on the presence of the principal in K-2 than their leaders (only in 3.5% of principals’ responses). Specific tasks cited by teachers included "presence at assemblies", "often in playground doing duty", visits K-2 classes regularly", and "takes classes for library".

Principals (in 15.1% of their responses) referred to the responsibilities of managing professional development in K-2. They placed greater emphasis on organizing professional development, as well as assessing the needs of teachers, than responding teachers. This is to be expected, as provision of professional development opportunities is an integral managerial task for principals leading primary schools.

In general terms, the principals provided a more comprehensive picture of their leadership tasks in K-2 than the early childhood teachers. In some instances teacher’s responses reflected tasks being completed by school principals which could be termed as trivial for the principal of a school. Examples of some of these citations by teachers are:

• "Takes responsibility for medication routine". Is this an appropriate leadership task? Will these principals, and indeed some teachers, find themselves in a legal battle in the future for undertaking this practice? With so many children on medication in our schools today it is worth considering whose should be responsible for the task of administration of drugs.

• "Doles out stickers, right, left and center. The kids love the stickers!" "Sincere, regular praise, plus recognition and celebration of accomplishments" are essential components of successful leadership and are arguably "the most overlooked ingredients of results-oriented leadership" (Schmoker 1996, p.104). However, a response such as the teachers’ one above leaves the researcher pondering the sincerity of this principals’ praise and the credibility of this leader in the teacher’s perceptions.

• "Hands out PD notices". Is this a necessary task in K-2 for a principal? Clerical staff are employed for this purpose and should be utilized accordingly.

• "Sees to time-out children". Many teachers (11%) and principals (15%) in Boardman’s (1999) study saw the principal having a key role in behaviour management. It could well be argued that time spent by the principal in disciplining children would be more effectively used in other, higher-order leadership tasks. Structure need to be in place, within schools, to free principals of this time-consuming role.
• "Controls budgets so all purchases go to her", and another response "says ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to all your requests". Both authoritarian principals perhaps? Or ones who enjoy the power associated with school leadership? The importance of trusting teachers, and the promotion of shared leadership practices appear somewhat lacking in both these principals.

No principals provided examples of such basic day-to-day tasks. Many took a broader view when reporting their K-2 leadership tasks. However, it is questioned as to whether the type of tasks listed below, received from responding principals, are more key responsibilities of a principal’s role. A selection of these "tasks" follows:

• "Fostering educational debate".
• "Counseling parents and teachers".
• "Providing structure for teachers to work within".
• "Empowering the assistant principal".
• "Encouraging risk-taking by K-2 teachers".

All of these tasks/responsibilities are commendable and integral to creating a transforming mode of leadership where the principal needs to inspire, and be a positive role model for others, whilst striving to develop a more effective learning organization (Anderson 1998). Nevertheless, the following is worthy of consideration:

• Why were the majority of leadership tasks, listed by K-2 teachers, as being undertaken by the principal generally day-to-day organisational aspects? Items such as "organises class sizes"; "checks reports"; "introduces new families to the school"; "instigated sports afternoon"; controls budgets" were among those received. This would be expected from some teachers, but not the majority. Some indication of overall broader leadership tasks would be expected from such a diverse group of teachers.
• Perhaps these findings reveal that some principals know the educational jargon required on occasions, such as this, when completing the study’s questionnaire, but fail to put these important leadership tasks into action within their daily leadership.

• Why is there so little congruence between the overall responses of principals and teachers to the leadership undertaken? For although it is possible to code both parties responses, the depth of content varies so much. It is apparent that the majority of teachers in this study failed to understand the complexity and divergence of leadership tasks within the principal’s role.
• Is it that many K-2 teachers see so little of their school principals that their comprehension of the scope of the principal’s role is restricted? This could be the case as 15% of responding teachers noted that the principal was rarely seen in the early childhood area of the school, responding with statements such as "the principal doesn’t come into my room often"; "we see him assembly"; "visits occasionally" and "he walks through now and then". All these respondents were rather condescending for their principal’s presence in early childhood. It is acknowledged that principals are busy leaders, however, they would do well to consider the words of Michael Fullan. Effective leaders "show an active interest by spending time talking to teachers, planning, helping teachers get together and being knowledgeable about what is happening" in the school (1991, p.168). Although this was written a decade ago, it is an important message for all school principals. To be knowledgeable about what is happening in the school means being part of the daily operation of the school, where the true action is, in the classrooms.

In summary, the lack of congruence between teachers’ and principals’ responses regarding the role of the principal in K-2, results in there being concern for the quality of the leadership being provided by some principals, within the schools in Boardman’s (1999) study. The majority of these school principals are of the opinion that they are completing their leadership role most effectively, as demonstrated by the positive mean score results, and the quality of the responses received in relation to the type of leadership tasks being undertaken in early childhood. Conversely, teachers appear far from satisfied with the role their principal plays in K-2, as reflected in the many disagree responses when considering the principal’s role. Further, their lack of understanding of the nature, as well as the diversity and complexity, of the tasks a principal undertakes in relation to K-2, is quite disturbing. However, the truth of the situation probably lies somewhere in between the high perceptions of the principals and the low perceptions of the teachers. Nevertheless, the lack of congruence highlights concern for Tasmanian early childhood education and its leadership.

It is suggested that addressing this lack of congruence between teachers’ and principals’ perceptions would be enabled if principals and teachers communicated more frequently. This means principals spending greater time in classrooms and not taking an apathetic view of early childhood education as seen in this teachers’ responses "she must be happy with how the K-2 team work, or I guess we’d see more of her". The principal having increased interaction with school personnel, especially teachers, has the potential to raise his/her credibility within the school community (Anderson 1998). This approach demands time and effort by principals, but changes are needed if K-2 teachers are to feel valued personally and that the early childhood area of the school is as important as all other areas. Further, enhanced communication between both groups would enable principals to gain a more realistic view of their leadership. It is acknowledged that some larger schools have other senior staff with specific responsibilities in early childhood leadership, however, this does not abrogate the principal from leadership presence and accountability in the K-2 area of the school. At this time, the early childhood educational paths being traversed by K-2 teachers and their principal leaders show little congruence, with many obstructions and poor signage on the way. Changes are needed. Teachers need to reach out and invite their principals to visit their classrooms. Principals need to spend time in K-2 classrooms on a regular basis. Understanding will only come with enhanced communication and interest between both parties. As one principal in the study commented, "My leadership role is taking regular visits to all K-2 classes", and another noted "My task is just being there for K-2 teachers and children", both fine role models for other primary and district high school principals.

Let us hope that not too many principals are like Ben’s, the little boy in Prep, who after his school principal visited his class for the third time for the year in early December asked the teacher, after the principal left the room, "Is that Santa Mrs T?"

Little wonder teachers become disillusioned! All students in the school have the right to get to know their principal, just as teachers need to feel recognised and valued by the principal in the place where the real action of teaching and learning occurs, in their classroom.

Assisted school self-review process (ASSR). Hobart, Australia: Office of Educational Review.

Bishop, P. & Mulford, W. R. (1996). Empowerment in four Australian primary schools: They don’t really care. International Journal of educational reform, 5, 194 - 204.

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1997). The fire is back! Principals sharing school governance. California: Corwin Press.

Boardman, M.J. (1999). The nature of educational leadership in the early years,

Kindergarten to Grade 2, in Tasmanian schools. Unpublished Educational Doctorate Thesis. University of Tasmania: Launceston, Tasmania.

Fullan, M.G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). London: Cassell.

Gamage, D.T. (1998). Teaching principals: Their problems and concerns. The Practising Administrator, 20, 2, 38-43.

Goldring, E.B. & Sullivan, A.V. (1996). "Beyond the boundaries: Principals, parents & communities shaping the school environment". In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Carson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds), International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (Vol. 1) (pp. 195-222). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Grady, N.B., Macpherson, R.J.S., Mulford, W.R., & Williamson, J. (1994). Australian school principals: Profile 1994 (APAPDC). South Australia: Glenelg Press.

Hallinger, P. & Heck, R.H. (1995). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research (Draft).

Leithwood, K. & Aitken, R. (1995). Making schools smarter – A system of monitoring school and district progress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Leithwood, K., Begley, P.T., & Cousins, J.B. (1994). Developing expert leadership for future schools. London: Falmer Press.

Leithwood, K., Leonard, L., & Sharratt, L. (1998). Conditions fostering organisational learning in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34, 243-276.

Mulford, W.R. & Bishop, P. (1997). Leadership in Organisational Learning and Student Outcomes (LOLSO) Project. Launceston, Australia: University of Tasmania.

Rodd, J. (1998). Leadership in early childhood (2^nd.ed.). New South Wales, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Schmoker, M. (1996). Results: the key to continuous school improvement. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1996). Leadership for the Schoolhouse. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Stamopoulos, E. (1998). The perceptions of principals on their leadership role in preprimary. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 23, 2, 26-30.