School Leadership
Retention
The trend in recent years has been to decrease the number of people in central office school administration and to channel resources directly to schools and teachers. As a result the managerial functions formerly held by central office administrators have been assumed by the remaining central office staff or by the school principal. As more responsibilities have been added, other responsibilities have not been decreased. The current stress of the job, particularly the new emphasis on instructional leadership may be overwhelming for even the most dedicated school leaders, causing them to reconsider their decision to remain in school leadership positions. Studies indicate that school leaders choose to leave the position for some of the following reasons.
• The job is becoming more bureaucratic under new federal and state legislation. Too much time
is required to complete paperwork and reporting responsibilities;
• Pay is not commensurate with the responsibilities of the position;
• The job takes too much time outside the regular day;
• School discipline is an increasingly vexing issue with violence an ever-present threat;
• Inadequate support for school leadership positions exist among parents, the community, media
and policymakers;
• Not enough authority exists in many areas—such as the freedom to hire and fire personnel—to
allow administrators to lead effectively;
• Inadequate opportunities exist to interact with peers.
One strategy that has been used successfully to address concerns about isolation and to provide support for new and existing school leaders are formal induction programs, including strategies such as mentoring. Mentoring programs are increasingly being implemented within state revisions to licensure requirements. States such as Alabama, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia all include mentoring requirements as part of certification standards. The idea of mandatory coaching or mentoring for new principals has been widely supported by new and existing principals and superintendents.
Job security also is an important issue for school leaders. With new and stricter accountability measures, it may be difficult for administrators to engage in the long-term reform efforts needed to improve school performance if the threat of losing their job persistently exists. Encouraging extended contracts with school leaders that are tied to new accountability requirements may help increase the number of school leaders remaining in the profession.
Another barrier that may keep school leaders—especially principals—from entering and remaining in the position is the amount of compensation they receive compared to many teachers. In some cases, new principals just entering the field do not feel they are paid adequately for the demands of the job they perform. Reevaluating the pay schedule for principals to make it easier for local districts to compensate principals adequately or to provide incentives—such as offering bonuses for leading hard-to-staff, low-achieving schools or for increased school performance—may increase the retention of school leaders.
State Activity
• Arkansas offers a yearly incentive bonus for successful completion of the Master School Principal Program. Additionally, the department of education pays a salary bonus of $25,000 for every school year, up to five years, to any building-level principal who receives a master school principal designation from the Arkansas Leadership Academy and is employed full time as a building-level principal in an Arkansas public school district that is or was designated as a public school in phase two or phase three school improvement status, or a public school located in a school district in academic distress.
• Hawaii enacted legislation in 2005 to provide incentives to keep exemplary principals and vice principals at the school level. The legislation encourages them to accept long-term assignments in hard-to-staff schools, special needs schools, and schools with high teacher turnover. The incentives include allowing local school boards to grant principals and vice principals' salary increases more frequently than once every three years. In addition, teachers, principals and vice-principals may accept incentive packages—which may include housing, mileage reimbursement and discounts at local businesses—provided by local communities.
• Oregon has instituted a program entitled The BELL (Building Education Leaders Locally). This project began with a class examining the district's culture, operations and priorities. The class, taught by district administrators and supervisors, was followed by action-research projects, group leadership projects (such as serving on district committees), administrator internships and mentoring of new administrators. Three years later, five of the original 43 participants occupied administrative positions (three in the district); eight had gained experience by serving as administrative interns or by overseeing summer programs; and 16 were in the process of earning administrative certification.
• Mississippi established The Beginning Principal Support Pilot Program first implemented by the School Executive Management Institute (SEMI) in 2000. The new Beginning Principal Support Pilot Program will assign mentors to new principals in five districts. The budget provides $150,000 in initial funding for this program. The program attracts principals who have successfully served for at least three years in the public school system and who are interested in mentoring first-year principals. After completing the program, mentor principals serve to support new principals. The support includes, but is not limited to, direct administrative observation and consultation assistance in administrative planning and preparation, assistance in developing strategies to lead schools effectively, and performing the administrative tasks necessary to school leadership.
Key Questions for Legislators
1. Is the job of the school administrator structured so that one person can adequately perform the job? How can the job be structured more effectively? Has the concept of distributive leadership been explored?
2. Is the structure such that leaders have appropriate authority to effectively perform their jobs? Is the structure clearly defined?
3. What is the current salary structure within the state? Is the salary commensurate with the demands of the position? Is the salary structure the same district to district?
• Is there a system for performance pay?
• Are salary incentives an option in hard-to-staff areas?
• Are non-salary-related incentives an option?
4. How much peer support does the school leader have during the first three to five years on the job?
5. Does the state have an induction and mentoring process? If so, what are the requirements for mentors?
• Do the mentors have to show effective leadership skills in their schools? Is there a requirement that all mentors be trained? Do trained mentors receive extra compensation?
- Does the mentor have similar cultural characteristics—such as similar ethnicity, similar gender, similar background, urban vs. rural—as the inductee? Is that needed?
Visitor counts for this page.
 Education Home Page
|
