International Profiles of the Principalship Paul T. Begley Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Toronto, Ontario, Canada Glenda Campbell-Evans Edith Cowan University Perth, Western Australia Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education November, 1992 Geelong, Victoria Dr. Paul T. Begley is Associate Professor at the Midwestern Field Centre of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto,Ontario. His areas of academic interest, within the Department of Educational Administration, include administrative values, school improvement processes, and leadership development in cross-cultural environments. Dr. Glenda Campbell-Evans is Lecturer at the Department of Educational Policy and Administrative Studies, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia. Her research efforts are currently focused in the area of the professional development of practising and aspiring school administrators. Abstract This paper reports on three university sponsored projects carried out during the time period 1990-92 in the Canadian Province of Ontario, the Canadian Northwest Territories, and Western Australia. Each project involved the development of multi-level, situationally sensitive, profiles of school leadership practices by writing teams composed of 12 to 15 academics and practicing school administrators. The outcome was three documents, each depicting in a graphical manner, contemporary and regionally specific images of the principalship. Each profile portrays multi-dimensional images of practice, described behaviourally within developmental stages of growth leading to ideal practice as locally defined. In addition to the contrasting images of the principalship and the genuinely transformational experience of producing such profiles, the writing teams report as outcomes several uses for their profiles at the state, district, or school site levels. All three profiles are currently being used as a basis for developing situationally sensitive pre-service preparation courses for aspiring principals as well as in-service programs for incumbent school leaders. They may also be used at the district level as supports to strategic planning processes. Within individual schools, profiles of effective practice can be used as resources to support self-directed professional development or collegial coaching processes. International Profiles of the Principalship A number of persistent problems confound the efforts of those committed to the development of expert leadership practices for schools of the present as well as those of the future. For example, there is a continuing lack of consensus among academics and practitioners alike on what constitutes ideal school leadership and how it should be defined. The "rear view mirror" perspective of most formal preparation programs and the questionable pedagogy and relevance of some university and field-based professional development efforts are other problems. A final important issue, in our view, is the failure of formal programs to accommodate divergent regional needs and learning readiness levels evident among the participants in such programs. Our efforts to respond to these challenges has led us to explore the development and use of situationally specific, multi-dimensional profiles of professional practice as a basis for fostering the development of expert school leadership practices. Within the past two years we have produced three separate regional profiles of effective principal practice; two in Canada and one in Australia. Even as we complete the field validation of these initial three profiles, it is our intention to launch additional profiling projects in other regions of Canada and the United States. In time we hope to produce six or more profiles representing alternate images of effective school leadership practice in North America and Australia. The three profiles described in this paper were developed by writing teams made up of academics and practitioners working collaboratively within given regions. We begin the paper with a review of some of the generic problems faced by staff developers which profiles may address and some discussion of the conceptual underpinnings and procedures of the profile development process. The balance of the paper is devoted to a description of thethree profiles which have been developed and a discussion of several issues and liabilities which have emerged from our work. Edited versions of the three profiles have been included as appendices. Objectives: Objectives for this ongoing project include: 1. To develop regionally specific profiles of contemporary school leadership practices, grounded in locally defined images of effectiveness as well as the findings of relevant research, to be employed as a basis for designing pre-service and in-service professional development programs. 2. To develop, as an alternative to formal training programs, professional development resources which could be used by individuals or small groups as a support to self-directed and / or formative professional development. 3. To compare and contrast the images and dimensions of effective school leadership practices developed by several regionally representative writing teams employing the same profile generation procedures. 4. To investigate the transformational learning potential of the profiling technique as a mode of professional development. Practical & Conceptual Issues Relating to School Leadership Development: The design and implementation of formal training programs which meet the current and future needs of school leaders involves considerably more than just mirroring the typical practices of the past. Effective programs will be those which address the knowledge, skills and attitudes required by the leaders of future schools (Leithwood, Begley & Cousins, 1992). Furthermore, such learning and skill acquisition must be achieved through the use of a process or learning context that is responsive to a number of factors. An ideal learning environment will be sensitive to the varying levels of readiness manifested by school leadership candidates upon entry into a formal preparation program. It will also recognize the particular needs of adult learners. Finally, the delivery of even an exemplary program will inevitably be complicated by the precedents and expectations established by previous leadership programs and even the potentially divergent orientations of instructional personnel and program sponsors. In our experience as program developers since 1985, we have noted that people enroll in principal preparation programs and professional development courses for a variety of reasons and with a broad range of expectations (see Begley & Campbell-Evans, 1993). Readiness levels can vary so greatly within a given cohort of candidates that program implementors are sometimes presented with instructional challenges which parallel, or even exceed, those faced by a teacher in a completely de-streamed elementary panel classroom. To be specific, depending on whether a serious needs assessment process precedes course development, and what criteria are employed for candidate selection, participants enrolled in programs may bring to the experience a relatively broad spectrum of prior experiences,training needs and personal expectations. These "base rate" characteristics (Feldman, 1989) constitute candidate readiness for participation in a particular program. Given the array of educational experiences and skills required for the development of a comprehensive image of leadership effectiveness, it also seems important to take a longitudinal and developmental view of administrators' socialization experiences. We find van Gennep's (1960) three stage model of professional socialization (Separation, Transition, and Incorporation) helpful in conceptualizing the developmental process whereby individuals are influenced by a number of socializing factors (see Ronkowski and Iannaccone, 1989). van Gennep suggests a process of general professional maturation progressing from being defined by others to being self-defined. According to van Gennep, at the Separation stage, people are concerned with comparing themselves with others and how others judge their adequacy. At the Transition stage the pattern of "self location" is against the standards imposed by the functions of the job and task performance. At the Incorporation stage individuals make comparisons between their former and present self (e.g. perceptions of progress made from a previous self toward becoming an instructional leader). Developmental principal profiles, such as the three we describe herein, at least potentially could play an important role in supporting this theorized process of professional maturation; particularly at the Transition and Incorporation stages of development. A substantial body of applied research has accumulated in recent years purporting to describe the nature of administrative expertise (see Greenfield, 1987; Burdin,1989; Leithwood, Begley and Cousins,1992). Principal preparation programs can now be grounded in more than just the context-bound practices, or theories-in-use (Argyris, 1982), manifested by local practitioners serving as instructors. This availability of research-derived knowledge on effective administrative practices has permitted the design and development of much better validated leadership programs for principals (see Daresh & Playko,1992). However, despite the increased rigour which is evident in research-driven program designs, several issues remain. These relate to candidate perceived relevance. Semantic problems can occur with the use of particular educational or academic jargon which is more or less acceptable from region to region. In our experience, a particular emphasis on some dimension of practice in one region can easily alienate the audience from another region. For example, discussing "socialization" research with a group of practitioners in Australia may suggest mind control, a negative connotation, whereas, with a Canadian audience, nary a ripple would be noted. Similarly, in many regions of Canada the term "child-centred education" has recently become politically charged and is to be avoided at all costs. On the other hand, American practitioners seem much inclined to speak of "test scores" and improving a school's "grade point average", terms which are not "user-friendly" in the Australian and Canadian "interface." The development and use of research-driven, but situationally sensitive profiles may prove helpful in addressing this issue. Thus a profile for an Australian audience might safely address the "pastoral" responsibilities of the principal without fear of confusing Canadian principals who likely would associate this term with crop management or animal husbandry. In Ontario, the Northwest Territories, and Western Australia virtually all principal pre-service preparation programs now manifest varying degrees of commitment to the view of the principal's role usually described as instructional leadership1. It is possible to argueconvincingly in support of more recently developed conceptions of the role, such as transformational leadership (see Educational Leadership, 1992). However, given the mandated nature of the syllabus for most principal certification programs, and the natural time lag encountered when new knowledge impacts on established procedures, we initially concluded that instructional leadership remains the dominant image of school leadership. However, that proved not necessarily to be the case for at least two of the profiles. With the Northwest Territories Profile, the writing team proved to be quite keen to incorporate within their document what they viewed as the highly attractive, minority group empowering vocabulary of Transformational Leadership2. A similar response was observed with the Ontario profile writing team, although they wished to avoid the term "transformational" as much as possible because of its perceived trendiness. As suggested earlier, traditional university-based courses tied to graduate degree programs often lag behind the most recent findings of research on educational leadership. This is something of an irony. Unfortunately, they frequently also add insult to injury by not necessarily being sensitive to the canons of good pedagogy or even candidate satisfaction levels. As Gaines-Robinson and Robinson (1989) point out, course activities are more likely to reflect a stereotyped requirement of a course, which has developed a life of its own through repetition, rather than any identified need expressed by candidates or perceived by a program sponsor. Furthermore, course candidates, who may or may not have need for a particular skill activity, must typically participate in all activities because of expectations for a uniform pre-service course experience. A generalization perhaps, but, nevertheless, not a flattering image for those of us who are teaching university faculty. A recent study on the socializing influences experienced by aspiring principals (see Begley & Campbell-Evans, 1993) lends further support to the notion that developmental profiles may be useful to school leadership development. According to the findings of this study involving 87 aspiring principals in the Northwest Territories, more than half of the aspirants apparently pursued principal training as a way of moving towards an existing image of the principal's role. In this study, more than 50% of candidates also cited skill development as motivating them to pursue training. Nearly a third (26 cases) sought training to broaden their professional perspective and 19 candidates saw the training as relevant to their present position. The implication for those interested in promoting principal recruitment, or encouraging individuals to pursue training, is that their best strategy may be to emphasize the organizational "career ladder" and "skill development" aspects of principal training, and the general value and applicability of the training to presently held positions. This is consistent with Van Maanen's (1984) notion of "chains of socialization", cited by Feldman (1989), which suggests that the process of organizational socialization consists of aspirants making only minor modifications in their behaviour and attitudes from job setting to job setting. A final word to acknowledge the perspective of radical theorists, subjectivists and the like. Our orientation to profile development has been, without apology, functionalist. To produce our profiles we employ a set of procedures derived from and founded upon traditional curriculum gap analysis techniques (Leithwood and Montgomery, 1987), planned educational change theory (Fullan, 1991), and the procedures of school improvement (Huberman & Miles, 1984: Leithwood, Fullan & Heald-Taylor, 1986) . On the other hand,we do acknowledge the contingent and dynamic nature of the school leadership role, as well as the multiple images of situationally and subjectively defined practice. Hence our interest in multiple, regularly validated images of the role. Furthermore, the members of the writing team were predominantly practicing principals, and therefore the primary stakeholders in the process of profiling their own practices. However, these are people who do not question their right or responsibility to exercise leadership in their schools. Finally, although these profiles reflect the findings and vocabulary of school improvement and principal effectiveness research, they are primarily grounded in the actual practices of keen and competent school leaders who are much valued as professionals within their own jurisdictions. What's A Profile? A profile is a two dimensional matrix which describes developmental stages of growth in professional practice within selected dimensions of professional action (see appendices A, B, & C for illustration). The creation of a profile begins with the establishment of a goal statement followed by a series of decisions about which categories of professional action are most relevant to the achievement of the desired state described in the profile goal statement. In a profile these categories are called Dimensions. Each of these Dimensions is also usually broken down into a set of Sub-dimensions. To accomplish this, various facilitative and consensus building strategies are employed to blend research findings from the literature with local craft knowledge. For example, in the case of the NWT Principal Profile, the writing team ultimately settled on four key dimensions of principal practice: The Principal as Advocate, School Culture Management, The Principal as Instructional Leader, and Organizational Management (see Appendix A). The next step in creating a profile is behaviourally describing, within each Dimension or Sub-dimension, the range of professional behaviour which might be observed in the work setting. These alternate levels of professional practice are sequenced within dimensions of the profile according to their relative impact on attaining the desired outcomes identified in the profile goal statement. They can be thought of as the stages of growth ranging from typical competent practice to highly exemplary or ideal practice. Profiles generally are not employed to describe incompetent practices. Profiles are usually produced by a writing team of representative practitioners and academics who generate a series of draft documents. These profile drafts then typically undergo an extensive field validation process before a final version of the document is released for use. Developing each of the profiles described in this paper typically required 30 to 40 hours of intensive collaborative group work by the actual writing team, plus many additional days of work by a subset of the team in editing and validating the various drafts. Full validation of the final drafts typically takes at least one academic year. In our view, the profiles should probably be reviewed and revalidated within five years. The original and probably best known "principal profile" was produced in 1983-84 by Leithwood and Montgomery (1986). This was a rigorous application of the innovation profiling technique, essentially a curriculum analysis procedure, to a role description task (see Leithwood and Montgomery, 1987) . This profile was based on an exhaustive review of existing research on effective schools and instructional leadership practices3. Following usual academic protocol, field validation with a large sample of practitioners occurred afterthe literature review. We reversed this procedure in developing our three profiles to the extent that we employed personal inventory surveys and consensus building activities with the writing teams prior to introducing and reviewing research findings. This reflects our somewhat more subjective philosophical orientations as well as our desire to ensure a high degree of local relevance in terms of vocabulary and image definition. Two attributes were common to all three of the profiling projects reported in this paper; the time frame and the methodology employed. All three profiles were produced during 1990-92 with the Canadian author acting as group facilitator for all three writing teams. Secondly, except for as noted above, the procedure used to produce these developmental images of the principalship was based on an innovation profile development process proposed by Leithwood and Montgomery (1987). Applied as a role analysis procedure, this process produces multi-dimensional images of practice described behaviourally within developmental stages of growth leading from typical competent practice to an image of ideal practice. Using Principal Profiles: Role profiles can be used for a variety of purposes. In addition to their utility as a research-driven, field-validated conceptual framework from which to design and develop pre- service and in-service programs, they can be used for a number of less formal professional development purposes. School principals, working alone or with one or more partners, can use Principal Profiles as a resource to monitor and support their continued professional growth as school leaders in their jurisdictions. This may occur in a number of quite specific ways: 1. A profile may help to focus the principal's goals on the needs of students. 2. A profile may identify relevant criteria and standards of practice for self-evaluation, mentoring or coaching purposes. 3. A profile integrates the findings of recent research on principal effectiveness and local craft knowledge within detailed and situationally relevant descriptions of principal action. 4. A profile may help individuals analyze the amount of change required in their professional practices into incremental steps leading towards some ideal image of the role. 5. A profile may help principals to identify, emphasize and justify particular managerial and leadership practices identified by research and their colleagues as desirable. 6. A profile may provide a framework for predicting the obstacles which may be encountered by principals as they implement changes in their practices. 7. A profile may provide a basis for identifying school and regional differences which justify variations in an individual principal's practices. Information on how the three existing principal profiles are actually being used as supports to school leadership development in their respective jurisdictions is provided in the immediately following sections of this paper. The Three Profiles: This section of the paper provides a brief overview of the three profiles of the principalship produced by the writing teams in Western Australia, the Northwest Territories, and Ontario. We also discuss some of the outcomes and issues which emerged from ourwork. Edited versions of the actual profiles have been included with this paper as three separate appendices. The NWT Principal Profile: Instructional Leadership & Community Facilitation The majority of schools in the Northwest Territories (a vast region of the Canadian Arctic located north of the 60th parallel) are situated in small isolated communities. The population of the Northwest Territories (NWT) is also predominantly indigenous (Innuit, Dene & Metis) except in Yellowknife, the capital. Despite these unique features of context, a needs assessment process conducted by the NWT Department of Education in 1987 identified instructional leadership, a popular conception of school leadership in Canada and the USA, as equally relevant to school administration in Arctic Canada. This was perhaps natural since all but a few of the incumbent school principals were non-natives, much of the formal school curriculum comes from the southern regions of Canada, and most of the teachers employed in the North acquire their professional training at colleges in the south. Since that time, the academics and practitioners associated with the NWT legislated principal certification program have increasingly recognized the shortcomings of instructional leadership as an image of ideal practice upon which to base their program. Instructional leadership may be an appropriate image for large white-population dominated communities such as Yellowknife, but it fails to address important expectations for the role in the more predominant small and isolated communities. Other factors of concern which have recently be identified are the persistently high turnover rates for principals, and the continuing low levels of recruitment to the principalship from among aboriginal educators. The implementation in 1991 of a key Department of Education document entitled, The Framework, produced the final impetus necessary for developing an updated profile of the school leadership role in the NWT. This document identifies three responsibilities for the NWT principalship, at least one of which extends beyond the normal scope of instructional leadership. The first two, responsibility for instructional programs and creating a supportive learning environment are familiar enough. However, the third, provision of services that facilitate students' physical and cognitive preparedness for learning, implies for the NWT a broader, more community-wide, scope of concern. The profiling project was sponsored by the NWT Department of Education and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. A writing team was organized; composed of four practicing school principals, three district administrators, three Department personnel, one OISE faculty, and an OISE research officer. They met for four consecutive days to produce the first draft of their profile in May 1992. Two of the team members were aboriginal practitioners and four were female educators. They established the following goal for the NWT Principal Profile: To identify key dimensions through principals meet the needs of individual students, improve the quality of teaching and learning, and support the aspirations of the community. Without abandoning core dimensions of instructional leadership (eg. collaborative goal-setting, direct participation, monitoring, and a concern for student outcomes) the team produced a more situationally sensitive image of the role which reflects the cultural base of the Northwest Territories. The Department of Education Framework document contributed several new dimensions or sub-dimensions for the principal's role including; "consensual team building", "inter-agency community partnerships" and "community facilitation." However, the four keydimensions of principal action selected for the profile were Advocate, School Culture Management, Instructional Leader, and Organizational Management. The new profile (see Appendix A) provided the conceptual framework for developing the 1992 principal preparation program, replacing Leithwood and Montgomery's (1986) profile of the principalship. Final validation of the interim profile is being carried out during the 1992-93 academic year. The SW Ontario Principal Profile: Developmental Images of Effective Practice A number of factors combined to produce a school leadership profiling initiative in Ontario. The first source of motivation was the Ministry of Education. During 1990, the Principals' Course Advisory Committee of the Ontario Ministry of Education articulated a need to review and update the core objectives for its certification program. The existing core objectives had been developed in 1984 and focussed primarily on the curriculum management role of the principal. In more recent years it had become increasingly apparent that other important expectations for the role were being neglected. A need had emerged for an updated image of the principal's role which would encompass such new notions as transformational leadership, collaborative school cultures, and community empowerment. During the same time frame, the senior administrators of a school district located in Southwestern Ontario expressed to OISE faculty an interest in examining the links between the principal's role in district level strategic planning and school-based improvement projects. They had committed a considerable amount of district energy towards a top-down strategic planning initiative which produced detailed objectives for school improvement. Unfortunately, the links between the district plans and what individual principals were to expected to do in schools to support these plans was less than clear. It was hypothesized that a regional principal profile might help bridge this gap in the planning process. A final source of energy for the Ontario Profile initiative came from a third school district, in this case a publicly funded Roman Catholic school system. Much like the Western Australian principals discussed in the next section of this paper, these Ontario principals expressed a desire to use the innovation profile procedure as a needs assessment process prior to developing in-service programs which would link district priorities and initiatives to professional development plans. It was felt that all three of these Ontario agendas could be attended to by the development of a profile of effective principal practices. A writing team of 15 individuals was established with representation from the two school districts. A faculty member from OISE, aided by a research officer, acted as coordinator and facilitator for the process. Seven members of the team were female. This writing team met for a total of six days spread across several months in early 1992. The team produced as their profiling goal, the identification of the key dimensions of professional practice for principals committed to improving the quality of education. As a result, five key dimensions for the principalship in Southwestern Ontario were selected (see Appendix B). These included; The Principal as Visionary, The Principal as Problem Solver, The Principal as Instructional Leaders / Program Facilitator, The Principal as School Community Facilitator, and the Principal as Manager. A Principal's Profile (Western Australia, 1990) Recent changes in the Western Australian education system, resulting from the release and implementation of Better Schools in Western Australia: A Programme for Improvement(1987), have induced significant changes in the nature of the Western Australian primary principalship. Principals are now required to play a much expanded leadership role within their school communities compared to the past. Partially in response to these pressures, a project was launched to produce a profile of the primary principalship in Western Australia. This profile was also the first of the series of three profiles to be developed. The document which resulted is primarily intended to be used by incumbent principals as a resource to promote their own self development and empowerment. This is in contrast to the strong Northwest Territories and Ontario agenda to produce a profile to support the development of formal professional development programs. The W.A. Principal Profile has certainly influenced the design and development of professional development experiences at Edith Cowan University, but perhaps in less formal or officially sanctioned ways than the other two profiles. The W.A. Principals' Profile was constructed by principals from the Ministry of Education and Catholic education and based on their collective experiences as well as a literature review of key Ministry documents. The stated objective of the profile was, "to demonstrate collaborative leadership which will optimize the education of each member of the school community." As is the case for the other profiles, it is not a deficit model which describes the shortcomings of a failing principal. The user of the profile is assumed to be performing at a level which is considered at least satisfactory. The strength and validity of this profile lie in its multi dimensional description of the characteristics of the highest levels of achievement. The writing team members feel confident that a principal using this profile can easily see what qualities are required to be a top level performer in W.A. schools. The W.A. Principal's Profile (see Appendix C) has three sections or key dimensions: Self - which describes the personal qualities of successful principals; Processes - which describe gradations of successful use of processes; Outcomes - which describe the goals of the successful principal's actions. Discussion: The Profile Dimensions: When the three profiles are compared it becomes evident that all the profiles share a common core of three key dimensions . With semantic differences,all three profiles have in common descriptors of effective practice relating to School Culture Management, Instructional Leadership, and Organizational Managment (see appendices A, B, & C). In some ways this is a remarkable outcome given the far-flung distances involved. It suggests that there are important similarities in the Australian and Canadian principalships. In both countries principals apparently see their contemporary roles as extending much beyond traditional building management to include instructional and cultural leadership responsibilities. On the other hand, given that all three profile teams reviewed the same school improvement research findings as part of the profiling process, it is not surprising that the profiles share some of the same vocabulary and concepts. A comparison of the NWT and Ontario profiles reveals a heavier emphasis in the NWT profile on transformational (collaborative, teacher and community empowering) strategies. The ideal NWT principal is portrayed as engaging in school culture or organizational "management" as opposed to being "the manager"; an emphasis on facilitation and consensus building rather than control. In contrast, the Ontario profile projects a moreindividual or charismatic leadership-oriented image of the role. The Ontario Profile also presents a more ambitious or sophisticated image of the principalship. This is illustrated by the inclusion of "Visionary" and "Problem Solver" as additional key dimensions of practice. However, in both profiles, the writing teams have clearly expanded their image of the principal's role beyond the limitations of traditional instructional leadership. The W.A. Principal Profile also has some unique qualities. The Australian writing team chose to place the three dimensions common to all three profiles (culture, instruction, & administrative management) within a single composite dimension they called Processes. They then created a separate dimension, titled Self, as a way of describing the personal orientations which drive the activities or Processes of the principalship. This effort to isolate the beliefs and intents which underly the actions of the principalship is unique to the three profiles. A second unique feature of the W.A. Profile is a third composite dimension identified as Outcomes. This key dimension collates the highest levels of effective practice identified under Processes into a summary of goal oriented practices. Like the Ontario and NWT profiles, the three sections of the W.A. profile are clearly inter-related, but, unlike the other two profiles, may be used separately or as a total picture. Thus, the W.A. Profile user may look at their success on the Outcome dimension of the profile and then validate this against the Processes and Self profiles. Alternately the principal can commence at Processes and work either way to the other dimensions. The Profile Growth Strands: The preceding section focussed on a discussion of the dimensions of practice selected by the writing teams for their regional profiles. In this section we look at the developmental growth described in the profiles, moving left to right on the pages from the lower levels of competent practices to the ideals described at the highest level of the profiles. A comparison and analysis of these descriptive statements reveals the implicit "growth strands" which the writing teams have incorporated within their profiles. Some fascinating images of professional growth emerge. What follows is a sampling of the growth strands common to all three profiles: From a tendency towards reactive responses to proactive responses: The "management" sub- dimensions in both the NWT and Ontario profiles (e.g. finances, time management) illustrate this growth strand. From reliance on self, to mimicry of others, to attention on outcomes, to sensitivity to multiple environmental influences: This growth strand is evident particularly in the school and community culture management dimensions of all three profiles. From rigid adherence to fixed procedures, to procedural flexibility, to philosophical or conceptual fidelity: The instructional leadership dimensions in all three profiles illustrate this growth strand within such sub-dimensions as evaluation. From in-school focus, to inter-school focus, to school within the greater community focus: All three profiles incorporate this growth strand, particularly within the school and community culture management sub-dimensions. From a limited repertoire to a broad repertoire of strategies: The highest levels of practice across several dimensions of the three profiles, but especially the sub-dimensions of instructional leadership, manifest this notion. Conclusion: Some Liabilities Relating to Profile Use We can identify a number of potential liabilities resulting from the use of profiles. However, despite these caveats, we believe the potential benefits far outweigh the liabilities. Certainly, the practitioners involved in the validation of these profiles have responded with enthusiastic support for the documents. We have been encouraged enough by the outcomes of our first three profiles that tentative plans have been made to produce at least two additional profiles in the coming year; one in a state of the United States and a third Canadian profile. Ultimately, we believe that responsibility for appropriate and ethical use of such resources will lie with the user. However, this does not eliminate our responsibility to consider potential liabilities. We conclude by identifying six limitations to profile use: 1. Profiles are expensive to produce in terms of the time and resources needed. Not all jurisdictions can afford to produce such labour intensive resource documents. This may raise an equity issue. In an era of fiscal restraint, some groups may devote less energy to field-validation then would be considered ideal, or employ something less than a representative group as a writing team. 2. Once a profile has been produced, it needs to be properly implemented. Project sponsors should avoid expectations for a quick fix in terms of increased principal effectiveness. The writing team members must also have credibility with the potential users of the profile otherwise implementation efforts will fail. Finally, a profile should be attractively laid out in order to invite use by busy school administrators who already must process a lot of paper. 3. Most profiles are quite linear and sequential in their portrayal of a role. They are also, more often than not, complex documents. This may offend individuals who are more intuitive or "right-brained" in their orientations. Moreover, a profile is in many respects a caricature of professional practice, emphasizing some dimensions and not others. Some individuals, whose professional practices are not reflected within the dimensions and developmental stages may become alienated. Nobody likes to be perceived as incompetent or out of step professionally. 4. Some educators are strongly inclined to be innovation focussed. They may mistakenly view the profile as an "end" in itself rather than a" means" to an end. Dogmatic adherence to a fixed role image is not a desirable outcome of profile development. The nature of the principalship is in continual flux and this dynamism in response to social and environmental influence will likely continue. 5. There is a very real potential for the mis-use of principal profiles as a tool of summative evaluation. Most principals involved in the validation of our profiles have been quick to point this out. In our view, this is not an appropriate use for profiles. Informal and formative or growth-oriented performance appraisal applications may be acceptable. However, there are simply too many personal and contextual variables which cannot be accounted for to allow the use of profiles for summative evaluation purposes. We acknowledge that there are those who do not agree with us. 6. Profiles must be reviewed and updated from time to time. Changing role requirements, new research findings, a continually evolving image of what it is to be an educated person, these are all factors which conspire to give profiles a relatively short shelf life; probably five years or less. They ought to be reviewed and renewed on a cyclical basis just like school curriculum. Notes 1. Instructional leadership is usually characterized by the presence of a clearly articulated educational philosophy, extensive knowledge about effective educational practices, and a clear understanding of the policy environment framing the school's purposes and practices. This image of the role emphasizes leadership as well as management functions and extends considerably beyond the performance of routine work tasks, the usual domain of training research. Within the research community, justification for an instructional leadership approach to school administration has been based largely on the premise that certain characteristic actions of principals, intended to encourage and support classroom practices linked by research to improved student outcomes, have a positive impact on student achievement. However, research by Heck, Larsen and Marcoulides (1990) has also begun to validate the instructional leadership role of principals as a causal link to improved student outcomes. 2. Miller and Seller (1985) identify the Transformational orientation as one aimed at achieving personal integration and, particularly, social awareness. The strategies of the Transformation orientation are those of creative thinking, invitational teaching, cooperative learning, guided imagery techniques, and whole language learning. 3. For a more recent review of research on the principalship, see Leithwood, K.A., Begley, P.T., Cousins, J.B. (1990). Nature, causes and consequences of principals' practices: An agenda for future research. Journal of Educational Administration, 28,4,5-31. REFERENCES Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Begley, P.T., & Campbell-Evans, G.H (March 1993) Socializing experiences of aspiring principals. Alberta Journal of Educational Research. Begley, P.T., & Leithwood, K.A. (1990). The influence of values on school administrator practices. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education. 3, 337-352. Burdin, J.L. (ed.) (1989). School leadership. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Daresh, J.C., & Playko, M.A. (1992). The professional development of school administrators. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon. Feldman, D.C. (1989). Socialization, resocialization, and training: reframing the research agenda. In I.L. Goldstein & Associates, Training and development in organizations (p. 376-416). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M.G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. Toronto: OISE Press. Gennep, A. van (1960). The rites of passage,. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Greenfield, W.D. (1985, April). Being and becoming a principal: responses to work contexts and socialization processes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Greenfield, W.D. (1987). Instructional leadership. Boston: Allyn & Bacon Ltd. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1987). Instructional leadership in the school context. In W. Greenfield (Ed.), Instructional leadership: concerns, issues, and controversies. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Heck, R.H., Larsen, T.J., & Marcoulides, O.A. (1990). Instructional leadership and school achievement: validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(2), 94-125. Huberman, M.A. & Miles, M.B. (1984) Innovation up close: How school improvement works. New York: Plenum Press. Leithwood, K.A., Begley, P.T., Cousins, J.B. (1992). Developing expert leadership for future schools. London: Falmer Press. Leithwood, K.A., Begley, P.T., Cousins, J.B. (1990). Nature, causes and consequences of principals' practices: An agenda for future research. Journal of Educational Administration, 28,4,5-31. Leithwood, K.A., Fullan, M.F. Heald-Taylor, G. (1987) School level CRDI procedures to guide the school improvement process. OISE mimeo. Leithwood, K.A., & Montgomery, D.G. (1986). Improving principal effectiveness: the principal profile. Toronto: OISE Press. Leithwood, K.A. Montgomery, D.G. (1987) Improving classroom practices - using innovation profiles. OISE Press, Toronto. Ministry of Education in Western Australia. (1987) Better schools in Western Australia: A programme for improvement. Perth: Government Printer. Northwest Territories Department of Education. (1991) The framework. Yellowknife: Queen's Printer. Ronkowski, S., & Iannaccone, L. (1989). Socialization research in administration, graduate schools and other professions: the heuristic power of van Gennep and Becker models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook of work, organization, and society, (p.67-130). Skokie, Illinois: Rand-McNally. Appendix A: The Northwest Territories Principal Profile (1992) Appendix B: The Southwestern Ontario Principal Profile (1992) Southwestern Ontario Principal Profile Writing Team: John Bailey, Wellington Bd. of Ed. Paul Begley, OISE Midwestern Centre Marianne Bissegger, OISE Midwestern Centre Ralph Borelli, Dufferin-Peel R.C. Bd.of Ed. Ray Contois, Huron-Perth R.C. Bd.of Ed. Peter Durksen, Wellington Bd. of Ed. Madelaine Hughes, Waterloo R.C. Bd.of Ed. Paul Kelly, Dufferin-Peel R.C. Bd.of Ed. Laurie Kraftcheck, Huron-Perth R.C. Bd.of Ed. Faye Lund, Wellington Bd.of Ed. Bruce Macpherson, Wellington Bd.of Ed. Linda Ness, Waterloo Bd.of Ed. Lois O'Grady, Dufferin-Peel R.C. Bd.of Ed. Carol Slater, Dufferin-Peel R.C. Bd.of Ed. Gail Vick, Dufferin-Peel R.C. Bd.of Ed. Draft -- Do not quote or reproduce without the permission of the authors The Principal as Manager Utilizes available resources to ensure the effective and efficient operation of the school Student Conducthas a discipline policy in place strictly adheres to and enforces the school discipline policy uses school discipline policy to develop students' responsibility and problem solving strategies has collaboratively developed policies, procedures and an inserviced school community to ensure that all students are respected and learn to accept responsibility Budgetmeets the basic operating needs of the school within budget guidelines seeks input from staff in setting budget priorities involves the staff in setting budget priorities implements a collaborative philosophy of school budgeting which reflects accountability, long term planning, efficiency, and the current political and economic climate Supervisionimplements the basic summative evaluation procedure incorporates aspects of formative supervision uses a variety of supervisory approaches to assist and support staff development in a sensitive way integrates the supervisory practices with personal and professional growth plans in an effort to achieve school goals Legalitiesrelies on input and guidance of superordinates and colleagues to carry out the daily operations of the school demonstrates an awareness of the Ministry and Board procedures and acts when these impact on the daily operations of the school has a knowledge of the Education Act/Regulations and Statutes which are reflected in the school-based planning and goal setting process integrates the requirements/priorities of the Education Act/Regulations and Statutes into the daily operation of the school in a manner consistent with the school vision, goals and priorities Time Managementspends administrative time reacting to daily demands and occurrences is aware of the need to analyze and develop time management strategies develops a time management plan along with staff to facilitate the effective operation of school uses a time management plan to maximize the use of resources in order to achieve both the short and long term school goals The Principal as Instructional Leader/Program Facilitator Initiates and directs a growth oriented change process which maximizes learning outcomes for students, staff and community Learning Environmentrecognizes obvious features of the culture and accepts the existing school culture reacts to expressed needs within the culture examines the school culture by gathering input from informal monitoring procedures and initiates some changes unilaterally makes changes in school culture based on data gathered through formal, ongoing monitoring procedures begins to encourage participation in a school level decision-making process creates a climate which fosters sharing and professional growth establishes a culture which fosters cooperation, encourages risk taking and empowers (creating a community of leaders) establishes a culture which is based on a philosophy of life long learning establishes aa culture which fosters high levels of participation in a school level decision-making process creates a proactive culture which anticipates needs, initiates responses and monitors progress Goalsis aware of Board and Ministry goals develops school goals as mandated by the supervisory officer develops school goals in consultation with staff with reference to Board and Ministry goals initiates school goals in collaboration with staff with reference to Board and Ministry goals encourages teachers to use goals for long term planning transforms goals into short term objectives selects goals according to Board, Ministry, school-based initiatives and community needs sets high expectations for all students and staff transforms goals into short term objectives and identifies indicators of success uses goals as reference points for all activities Appendix C: A Principal's Profile (Western Australia) (1990)