I'm really worried about the crisis. If we continue to burn out these people, we're not going to find leaders.

—Glen “Max” McGee, Illinois State School Superintendent, from Dell'Angela (2001), p. 3.

According to the Educational Research Service (ERS, 1999), nearly 40 percent of all public school principals will retire or leave the position for other reasons before 2010. The Bureau of Labor Statistics anticipates the number of available jobs in school administration will grow 10 to 20 percent over the next five years (Institute for Educational Leadership [IEL], 2000, p. 3). Considering there are roughly 93,000 principalships nationwide (IEL, 2000), the vacancy rate in the United States could soar exponentially.

With the average age of a principal being 50 years or older, compounded by fewer people pursuing advancement opportunities leading to a principalship, many districts are scrambling to find strong leaders (ERS, 2000). The elementary principalship alone has experienced a 42 percent turnover rate since 1988. Attrition is expected to remain constant for the next several years. With such significant losses, it should come as no surprise that the greatest deficit of principals is at the high school level.

What does the available pool look like? During the late 1970s, an urban school district could expect as many as 40 applicants for every principal opening (Olson, 1999). Today that average is a mere 10. Nearly half of the 1,100 public schools in New York City are managed by principals with less than three years experience (Archer, 2002b). In 2002–2003, the state of Washington summoned 34 retired principals back to work to fill in as districts desperately sought new prospects (Association of Washington School Principals, 2003). Although women constitute 35 percent of the nation's principals, up from 2 percent in 1988, there's been only a 3 percent increase in the number of minority principals since 1999 (Fenwick & Collins Pierce, 2001). In an era of rising minority student enrollments, this statistic is another cause for concern.

In July 2001, the Los Angeles Times reported that California was producing 2,000 to 3,500 newly licensed administrators each year, yet only 38 percent actually assume leadership positions in California schools (Orozco & Oliver, 2001). Most opt to remain in the classroom or change careers entirely. No other profession can claim such staggering disinterest after a trainee's preparation. To make matters worse, a study published by the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA, 2000) disclosed that just 7 percent of the state's superintendents view principal preparation programs as “excellent.” Nearly one-fourth of these superintendents described the preparation of existing candidates as “inadequate.” Despite these worries, only about 3 in 10 California school districts offer any formal mentoring programs for new principals. At the national level, only 27 percent of reporting districts say they have programs in place to recruit or prepare aspiring principals (IEL, 2000). It appears the applicants under consideration aren't qualified to deal with the complexities of the job, and most districts have no immediate plans to expand their applicant pool.

Many factors drive people away from the principalship. Principals are being asked to do more with less time and fewer resources. The expectations placed on principals by state and local policymakers, parents, and the public have reached epic heights. Gerald Tirozzi, the executive director of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), bemoans the conflicting paradox that haunts high school principals. Tirozzi says that though principals face greater accountability, they've been stripped of authority or autonomy at the school level (Stricherz, 2001). As a result, the entire notion of learning leadership is thrown out the window as other less important issues take precedence. Consider my two dearest high school principal friends as examples. Rarely do they have time for a Friday night movie or a Sunday shopping spree. If they're not at the football game or winter formal, they're performing air guitar or enjoying a delicious chicken dinner at the water polo banquet.

What's Driving People Away from the Principalship?

Since the mid-1990s, an abundance of research has been conducted to ascertain what's keeping people away from the principalship and what's causing them to leave the job once they have it. In study after study, a lethal mixture of the following deterrents has transcended every level and demographic group of principals: time and overload, increasing responsibilities, work-related stress, salary, and institutional interference.

Time and Overload

Long Hours: A principal works upward of 54 to 80 hours each week, including evenings and weekends (ERS, 2000; Yerkes & Guaglianone, 1998). This is a taxing schedule for even the most energetic individual. One Illinois high school principal lamented, “No matter how visible you are, you are not visible enough” (Dell'Angela, 2001, p. 5).

Too Much on the Principal's Plate: Few duties fall outside the scope of a principal's job description. When one task is complete, two more are added to the plate. A recurrence of problems and hastily planned initiatives make it impossible for principals to get ahead. As the “to do” list grows, other responsibilities are not taken away.

Increasing Responsibilities

Government Mandates and Accountability: Nearly every lawmaker wants to be dubbed the education czar. New laws and requirements at the state and federal level are being passed in record number—often with little foresight or adequate funding. High school exit exams, state testing programs, class-size reduction, teacher induction and credentialing, and the No Child Left Behind Act are just a few examples.

Societal Problems Reflected in Student Populations: School safety, drug use, teen pregnancy, and teen suicide scratch the surface of what a principal must cope with. Additionally, schools are being asked to provide day care and other health-related services on their campuses, thus creating more programs for the principal to oversee.

Work-Related Stress

Meeting Achievement Standards: Whether a school is low or high performing, demands for improvement are equally weighted for principals. Keeping abreast of ever-changing curricula and teaching methods further adds to the stress experienced by principals.

Special Education Requirements: Parental demands for expanding services, changing Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates, full inclusion, Section 504 accommodations, and daylong meetings are just a few of the special education challenges that today's principals face. Lawyers and advocates are commonplace in individualized education plan (IEP) meetings and hearings, adding intimidation and stress to the workload.

School Funding Issues: Managing hard-to-understand budgets, dealing with yearly shortfalls, losing support staff because of inadequate funding, and overseeing fund-raising activities to support extra programs requires fiscal savvy. Most principals describe this as their weakest area of school management (Alvy & Robbins, 1998; Ruenzel, 1998).

Salary

Little Financial Incentive to Become a Principal: On average, the daily rate of pay for a new assistant principal is barely 5 percent more than that of an experienced teacher (Archer, 2002a). In addition, principals generally work 11 months of the year, whereas teachers generally work 9 months of the year. There is little incentive for senior teachers to leave the classroom.

Inadequate Pay: The per diem rate for principals isn't commensurate with the managerial responsibilities of their position as gauged by looking at the salaries of professionals with similar levels of responsibility (ERS, 2000). Salaries have not kept pace with the demands of the job.

Institutional Interference

Inability to Fire Poor Teachers: Principals feel their hands are tied when it comes to releasing ineffective teachers. The process of teacher dismissal is so cumbersome, few principals are willing to take it on (Johnson, 2002).

Negotiated Agreements: Constraints in employee contracts often preclude principals from making rapid change and moving schools forward (Johnson, 2002). For instance, school-based management and shared decision-making provisions in many collective bargaining agreements require hours of discussion to implement a single idea. With a high school faculty of 120, it might take an entire year of bartering to institute a 30-minute tutorial period. Most principals simply run out of steam before consensus is ever reached.

Stymied by the Central Office: Principals often view the bureaucratic and political structures of the central office as a major obstacle (New Teacher Center, 2002). Excessive paperwork, unrealistic deadlines, unfocused staff development efforts, and mandates unrelated to improving student achievement are a few of the issues principals must contend with.

By understanding the conditions that discourage candidates from seeking the principalship, districts can begin to examine the internal systems that may contribute to an already depleted pool. Central office staff and site-based leadership teams should look for quick and simple fixes to make the principalship more attractive. For example, although raising salaries may be impossible, a district can minimize the number of meetings for which principals are called away from their work sites. A simple gesture of dispatching a special education administrator to help a principal facilitate a difficult IEP meeting can also go a long way. Easing attendance requirements at school and district events is also helpful. Finally, to introduce the practice of selective abandonment, the superintendent might conduct a brainstorming session with principals to determine which duties are essential. Otherwise, principals never really know which tasks are politically acceptable to let go. Too often the central office is blinded by its own agenda and fails to recognize that changing the culture downtown can significantly change the outcome uptown. Making some relatively easy adjustments to age-old practices minimizes the burnout of existing principals and can make the job more attractive to newcomers.

A New Paradigm of Leadership

I work upward of 70 hours per week, including evenings and weekends. Today I disaggregated test data, searched the trash dumpster for a lost retainer, spoke at a Chamber of Commerce breakfast, developed a spending plan for a $500,000 grant, counseled a distraught parent about her daughter's proclivity toward body piercing, and met with officials from the nuclear power plant to discuss potassium iodide distribution in the event of a terrorist attack. Who am I? Why a middle school principal, of course!

Contemporary principals look and act much differently than the ones we remember from our school days. One minute the job demands intellectual savvy; the next minute it calls for an iron-clad stomach and a durable pair of latex gloves. According to Richard DuFour, retired superintendent of the acclaimed Adlai Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois, and nationally recognized author and consultant, today's principals must “have a sense of urgency, balanced by the patience to sustain [the school] for the long haul.” He continues, “They must focus on the future, but remain grounded in today. They must see the big picture, while maintaining a close [eye] on the details. [And] they must be strong leaders who give away power to others” (DuFour, 1999, p. 12). In essence, the “benevolent dictators” of the past are being replaced by the instructional maestros of the future.

The bygone era of authoritarian and aloof school management has paved the way for the emergence of a more culturally conscious leader. For districts to compete in the domestic marketplace, deliberate efforts must be established to recruit, select, train, and inspire this new brand of principal. Several states and educational organizations have developed standards for administrative practice that define what the 21st-century principal should know and be able to do. The National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP, 2001), for instance, has outlined six key elements that encapsulate what is expected of this next generation of school leaders. The destiny of tomorrow's eclectic principals lies in their ability to

1. Lead their schools in a way that places student and adult learning at the center.
2. Set high expectations and standards for the academic and social development of all students and the performance of adults.
3. Demand content and instruction that ensures student achievement of agreed upon academic standards.
4. Create a culture of continuous learning for adults tied to student learning and other school goals.
5. Use multiple sources of data as tools to assess, identify, and apply instructional improvement.
6. Actively engage the community to create shared responsibility for student and school success. (NAESP, 2001, p. 2)

As the standards illustrate, modern-day principals must lead from a higher plane. Developing leadership capacity is at the core of the collaborative principal's work. Tomorrow's principals have to begin today to become learners as well as teachers. They need to exercise support rather than control. This Zen-like approach requires deep reflection and inquiry. The process of building a professional learning community cannot be left to chance. Therefore, these 21st century pioneers must meet the following demands:

• Lead through shared vision and values rather than rules and procedures.
• Enlist faculty in the decision-making process and empower individuals to act.
• Provide information, training, and parameters for staff to make good decisions.
• Be results oriented.
• Concentrate on posing the right questions rather than imposing solutions. (DuFour, 1999, p. 13–16)

Superintendents are under scrutiny to fill vacancies with candidates who fit this new paradigm of leadership. As districts look to the future, they must strive to find principals who can “orchestrate rather than dictate” (DuFour, 1999, p. 17). This effort will guarantee that our schools have the kind of leaders they so desperately need and deserve.

Can We Reinvent the Principalship?

Principal Opening in Anytown School District, USA.Qualifications: Wisdom of a sage, vision of a [chief executive officer], intellect of a scholar, leadership of a point guard, compassion of a counselor, moral strength of a nun, courage of a firefighter, craft knowledge of a surgeon, political savvy of a senator, toughness of a soldier, listening skills of a blind man, humility of a saint, collaborative skills of an entrepreneur, certitude of a civil rights activist, charisma of a stage performer, patience of Job. Salary: Lower than you might expect. (adapted from Copland, 2001, p. 528)

Although this job description clearly exaggerates what might be expected of a principal, there is no doubt that the requirements of the job have become incredibly burdensome during the last two decades. Michael Copland, assistant professor of education at Stanford University, speculates “we have reached the point where aggregate expectations for the principalship are so exorbitant, they exceed the limits of what reasonably might be expected from one person” (Copland, 2001, p. 529).

Increasing expectations have given rise to the argument that the only way to fix the problem is to reinvent the role of the principal (IEL, 2000). In essence, the job needs to be made doable. Redistributing assignments among coadministrators to reduce heavy demands on the principal's time or appointing coprincipals to lead larger schools top the list of doable suggestions (Pounder & Merrill, 2001). Another consideration is to create shared responsibility and accountability for the outcome of site decisions to redesign the principal's role.

Although these are all excellent ideas, they simply do not go far enough in addressing the systemic and cultural barriers principals have to overcome. To make the principalship truly doable would require the educational establishment to alter public opinion, lower parental expectations, eliminate political pressures, ignore diversity, and reshape our values.

A more realistic approach to reinventing the role is to teach our principals how to make time for what truly counts, because their jobs will always seem complicated and overwhelming. In his book What's Worth Fighting For in the Principalship?, Michael Fullan offers this poignant message to principals: “There's no point in lamenting the fact that the system is unreasonable, and no percentage in waiting around for it to become more reasonable. It won't” (Fullan, 1997, p. 5). Instead, says Fullan, we must guide principals in setting aside time for what really matters. If we teach them how to focus and prioritize, we can condition principals to become action-oriented rather than waiting for things to improve.

These sentiments appear to be echoed by principals, too. Principals generally view themselves and the complex nature of their work favorably (ERS, 2000). In fact, the majority of the principals I work with say they were drawn to the profession because they enjoy change, variety, and excitement. As leaders, I find principals to be idealistic and dedicated. Most are extremely dutiful and loyal to their district. As skilled troubleshooters, principals are keenly aware that sometimes they just need to go with the flow. It is their unwavering desire to work with students, entwined with the strong belief that they can and do positively affect many lives, that keeps a principal going (ERS, 2000; Johnson, 2002). Despite the roller-coaster ride, most principals continue to find their jobs fulfilling and would opt for the same career path again given the choice.

Completely revamping the role of the principal may be impossible, but a district can take steps to restructure the principal's duties. By assessing staffing levels and taking an honest look at the administrative responsibilities at each school site, the central office can begin to introduce support staff in stages. Hiring 10 assistant principals at once probably isn't a viable option, but there may be other support positions that can be added gradually. If districts start by establishing a well-considered plan to redistribute site leadership, principals will learn to relinquish responsibilities and decisions without the worry of sole accountability. The following positions warrant consideration:

• Program specialists who can serve several sites and cut in half the time a principal spends in IEP meetings.
• District resource teachers released from the classroom to provide various functions related to curriculum development and teacher training.
• Assistant principals split between two campuses to take on some of the instructional and managerial responsibilities.
• Deans of discipline, who cost far less than an assistant principal, to handle time-consuming discipline and other operational issues.
• An athletic director in the central office who can respond to many of the sports-related and extracurricular problems.
• A district-level investigator to research claims of sexual harassment, discrimination, worker's compensation, and other serious allegations made against or by employees, students, and parents.
• An ombudsman to mediate citizen complaints and public relations issues.

Looking at central office organization and procedures may reveal other possibilities for remodeling the principalship. Are there things that the district retains control of that can be given up? Who controls the flow of paperwork? Does anyone monitor how or when various departments communicate with principals? What “urgent” projects surface day-to-day and week-to-week that pull principals away from learning leadership? How are hiring practices structured? Do principals have any say in the selection, assignments, and transfers of teachers? Although collective bargaining agreements dictate some circumstances, there is always wiggle room. Sometimes we just need to stop, look, and listen to find it.

Finally, district administrators and principals themselves need to let go of traditions and rituals that hinder progress. When there's no one left in the building who can convince you that doing something a particular way makes sense, it's probably time to move on. Too often we find a lot of people doing the wrong things well, so we're convinced that they're right. We have to look inside ourselves to bring about the changes necessary to make schools even better. By examining our own shortcomings and challenging the status quo, leverage opportunities will surely surface. These leverage points—places where the least amount of effort spawns the greatest good—can serve as the spring-board in redesigning the principal's role.

Three Approaches for Improving the Principalship

To address the burgeoning principal shortage, local districts need to tackle the problem on three fronts. First, the central office should take a long hard look at what is and isn't being done to combat the problem. Do the school board and superintendent provide leadership in designing a district recruitment plan? Do existing principals and other members of the administrative team actively participate in the recruitment process? If your district isn't experiencing a dearth of candidates, it likely will in the near future. Seeking trainable candidates and developing them from within is a sure-fire way to fill openings with leaders who best meet your district's needs.

Second, the district needs to provide practical training for new principals. Once hired, principals need intensive support and coaching. A structured orientation to the assigned school and district is a must for every first-year principal. Coaches, veteran mentors, and buddy programs should also be standard fare. The district's investment in rookie principals pays dividends in the end. In their book If Only I Knew. . . Successful Strategies for Navigating the Principalship, Harvey Alvy and Pam Robbins stress the intricate relationship between performance during principals' inaugural year and their long-term effectiveness. The first year is a strong predictor of principals' future success, therefore it's imperative they “get it right the first time” (Alvy & Robbins, 1998, p. 15). To this end, the central office has to coordinate the sharing of resources, both human and material, to ensure the development of successful habits early on. Everyone from the personnel department to the business office should care about the newcomer.

Third, the continuous learning and validation of experienced principals is vital. Helping veterans to find more time to focus on instruction, keep abreast of curricular changes, understand evolving state and local mandates, and inspire their staff to reach new heights requires deliberate attention from the central office. Beginning with the school board and filtering through the superintendent, experienced principals should be encouraged to establish meaningful performance goals that extend beyond their comfort zone. These goals must be specific, measurable, and few in number. In addition, offer differentiated, as opposed to one-size-fits-all, professional development to strengthen the knowledge base of veterans. Although there are many parallels between the needs of new and seasoned principals, veterans view challenges and approach problems in different ways. Veterans tend to interpret and translate information differently from new hires because they have more experiences and resources to draw upon. Therefore, training and support should be scaffolded to accommodate these differences.

The work of principals must be valued and recognized at every level of a school district. Socialization activities to help principals combat job isolation and overload are important. Principals need structured opportunities to reflect upon problems and ponder solutions. For instance, in times of massive budget reductions, the superintendent should call principals together to hear their concerns and suggestions before recommending program cuts to the school board. Asking for input gives principals the message that their ideas are important. Individual and group celebrations should also be embedded into the culture so that every principal can share in the victories that come along. Finding and keeping good principals takes a concerted effort on the part of school districts. California's 2001 Superintendent of the Year, James A. Fleming, sums it up best:

If school boards, superintendents and central office staff fail to recognize the importance of attracting, promoting, and retaining quality principals, who will be left to lead our schools? After all, high stakes testing, increased graduation requirements, and school safety mean little without a principal. (Lovely, 2001, p. 43)

To evaluate an organization's internal effectiveness in administrative development and support, complete the inventory in Figure 1.1. Once areas of strength and need are determined, district leaders can begin to map out a viable recruitment plan to find, select, and hold on to high-quality principals.

Figure 1.1. Checklist for Attracting and Retaining High-Quality Administrators