Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2014 Reames 40 60

Article
Factors influencing principals

retirement decisions:
a southern US perspective
Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
2014, Vol 42(1) 4060
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1741143213499254
emal.sagepub.com
Ellen H. Reames, Frances K. Kochan and Linxiang Zhu
Abstract
This study, conducted in one state in the United States, replicated similar research from over a
decade ago to compare principal demographics and reasons for remaining or leaving the profession. Demographics have trended with the nation. Principals are older, more diverse and are
largely eligible for retirement within the next five years. Similar demographics are noted in
Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The reasons for retiring have changed dramatically since the first survey. External mandates were the number one reason for retirement.
Another reason included spending more time with their family. Around the globe, other countries
are considering national initiatives, such as accountability and high-stakes testing or national
curriculum standards. This study may provide a cautionary note regarding the impact on
principal role and retention. Thus, while the study occurred in the United States, the policies
that influenced principals reasons for choosing to retire or stay in the profession appear to have
global implications.
Keywords
Administrator diversity, instructional leader, principal retention, retirement, southern United
States
Introduction
The role of the school leader has become increasingly complex in our global society (Townsend,
2009). Since this is such a vital role in teacher and student success, it is important to understand the
things that cause people to remain and leave this position. This study presents information about
this issue from the perspective of school leaders in Alabama, a southern US State. It also examines
the demographic make-up of these individuals. The research is unique in that it compared results
with findings of a study implemented over a decade ago. Although the research occurred in a single
state in the United States, it is relevant to a broader audience as it captures the changing dynamics
of the school leadership role.
Corresponding author:
Ellen H. Reames, Assistant Professor, 3074 Haley Center, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA.
Email: reamseh@auburn.edu
40
Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at Uni Politehnica on March 30, 2016
Reames et al.: Factors influencing principals retirement decisions
41
The manuscript begins with background information related to the global economy in which we
live and its impact upon schools and schooling. This is followed by a literature review dealing with
the issue of principal shortages in the United States. This section provides a backdrop for the purposes and scholarly significance of the study. Methods and findings are then presented. The manuscript concludes with a discussion and implications section that connects the findings to studies
from countries throughout the world.
Overview
The emergence of a global economy in the 1980s brought with it a change in the economic balance
of world powers; an international communications network; and an increased focus on the role of
education in assuring the economic success of nations (Townsend, 2009). This, in turn, led to an
expanded emphasis upon student learning and school success resulting in national initiatives
geared toward educational and school improvement in many nations. Examples include the passage of No Child Left Behind, a law enacted in the United States, charging schools with achieving
specific standards and eliminating achievement gaps between student subgroups; a movement
toward self-managing schools in New Zealand, Britain and Australia (Bush, 2009; Townsend,
2009); and the proliferation of tests used to make comparison of student achievement on a global
scale. These developments have also led to increased research on school factors related to student
success (Hoy and Miskel, 2001; Jacobson and Bezzina, 2010; Robinson and Timperley, 2007).
School-related factors and student success

Student demographics have been found to be related to student success and failure and there is
large body of literature that demonstrates the teacher is a critical factor in the equation of student
success (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Hattie, 2003; Robinson and Timperley, 2007; Rowe, 2003).
The culture of the school and the school leader are also of major importance (Hoy and Miskel,
2001; Leithwood et al., 2004; Murphy and Myers, 2008). In fact, research has identified compelling linkages between educational leadership, teacher development, school improvement and
student achievement (Bush, 2009; Dinham, 2007; Seashore-Louis et al., 2010). The importance
of this link has led to extensive research on the preparation of leaders in the United States US (Murphy and Datnow, 2003; Southern Regional Education Board, 2006, 2007; Young and Grogan,
2008) and in other countries throughout the world (Anderson et al., 2008; Leithwood and Riehl,
2005; Lumby et al., 2009). In addition, this leadership link to learning has initiated international
calls to redesign leadership preparation programs to ensure that they are meeting the needs of those
who will be filling this important role (Cowie and Crawford, 2009; Hallinger, 2003; Hean and Tin,
2008; Ingvarson and Anderson, 2007; Kochan, 2010; Reames, 2010; Walker et al., 2007).
The types of approaches to redesign vary. In Singapore, educational leadership programs have
incorporated the notion of a conceptual focus on the future (Hean and Tin, 2008). In the United
States, many programs have adopted the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Standards (Interstate
School Leaders Licensure Consortium, 2008) as their basis for curricular change. In England, the
National Professional Qualifications for Headship (NPQH) is being used and in Scotland, they have
adopted the Scottish Qualifications for Headship (SQH; Cowie and Crawford, 2009). In Australia
standards are being developed by all states and territories as well as professional groups. For example, New South Wales (NSW) Department of Education and Communities (2011) and the Australian
Council for Educational Leaders (ACEL, 2013) have both developed leadership benchmarks
41
42
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(1)
(Anderson et al., 2008). These initiatives provide standards upon which to build curriculum and
engage in program development. All of them appear to accept the notion that the role of school leaders has and will continue to be complex and preparation programs must be structured differently in
order to prepare potential leaders to lead schools of the 21st century effectively.
School leadership role

Research on the role of the school leader indicates that issues facing them will continue to expand,
increasing demands on their time and energy (Cantano and Stronge, 2007; Kochan et al., 1999;
Lugg et al., 2002). In addition to expanded accountability measures and increased media attention
(Thomson, 2008), school leaders must deal with a wide variety of pressures which at times seem
insurmountable (Tucker, 2010). Although these pressures may differ across national borders, there
are many that appear to be common across cultures and contexts (Bottery et al., 2008). Among the
most prominent are fiscal shortages (Ginsberg and Multon, 2011; Thomson, 2008); mandated
external bureaucratic policies and increased scrutiny (Bottery et al., 2008; Chaplain, 2001); interpersonal relationship problems (Tsiakkiros and Pashiardis, 2002); lack of support, multiple responsibilities and extensive workload (Englezakis, 2002; Tsiakkiros and Pashiardis, 2006; Thomson,
2008). All of these elements appear to result in a decline in ones quality of life often leading
to ill health and in decisions to give up the profession or retire from it (Thomson, 2008; Tucker,
2010). Dealing with this issue, related to head teachers, Thomson (2008) notes,
It appears that structural changes have increased headteachers responsibilities, with them being held to
account through testing, league tables, and published results, all forms of measurement which have
been designed to increase competition between schools and to improve their efficiency . . . Head teachers are left shouldering concerns and anxieties on behalf of the wider community and professional network. Schools appear to have been colonised by a whole series of functions which were previously
assigned to other institutions, including families. (p.73)
Principal shortages in the United States

In the United States, where this research occurred, it appears that demands upon principals,
coupled with an aging workforce and high rates of retirement, may cause the demand for new principals to explode (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005; Educational Research Service, 1998; Kersten
and Kersten, 2006). In fact, over a decade ago, the Educational Research Service (1998) found that
47% of urban districts, 45% of suburban districts, and 52% of rural districts reported shortages of
qualified candidates. National attrition rates were at 42% for elementary principals in 1998 and they
were expected to remain at least as high throughout the first decade of the 21st century (Doud and
Keller, 1998; Ferrandino, 2001). Approximately 60% of the principals across the nation reached
retirement age before the year 2000 (Educational Research Service, 1998). Indications are that the
trend of eligible retirees in the principalship in the United States will continue. For example, in the
New York City public school system more than 50% of the 1400 principals left their jobs between
2000 and 2006 (DeLeon, 2006). Demand may be greatest in states and school systems with high
concentrations of poverty, limited resources and persistently low-performing schools (Roza, 2003).
Although urban, high-poverty districts may have difficulties in filling principalships, states with
rural school districts are also faced with unique circumstances and challenges relative to school
leadership. A great deal of research has been conducted on the needs of low-performing urban
42
43
schools in the United States, but the challenges facing rural low-performing schools and districts
create conditions where it can be difficult or even impossible for rural districts and schools to
attract new principals and teachers (Kutash et al., 2010: 15) and to participate in turnaround practices. Geographic isolation, high poverty levels and lack of extensive human capital resources
when engaging in school reforms and particularly when attempting to turn failing schools around
are among the most challenging of these (Chalker, 2002). Alabama, the state in which this study
occurred, is primarily rural and is ranked as one of the top five Level IV Poverty (extreme poverty)
states (United States Census Bureau, 2011). In addition, of the 67 counties in the state only 11
counties have more than 25,000 citizens. In 2000 Alabama was 71% White, 26% Black, 3% Hispanic and 1% other (United States Census Bureau, 2000).
In Alabama, as in much of the nation, population declines in mostly rural high-minority counties reflect their economic disadvantage. Changing the trend of leaving high-poverty rural areas
takes concentrated effort to increase economic opportunities and the quality of life, which will,
of course, include the schools. Since these rural school systems are poor, it is difficult for them
to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers and school leaders. In fact, The Principal, Keystone
of a High-Achieving School: Attracting and Keeping the Leaders We Need (2000) report, which
was conducted by the Educational Research Service (ERS) reported in the United States, shortages
of principals in rural areas was higher than those for suburban or urban areas. Given the dire reality
of recruiting and retention in Alabama, the state is also hindered by options aimed at improving
rural areas. School closures are not a choice, since schools are physically far from one another.
Thus, capacity building seems to be the only choice for rural schools (Kutash et al., 2010). More
interventions need to be developed specifically for rural, high-poverty schools in need of improvement (Murphy and Myers, 2008). Among these interventions must be a focus on recruiting and
retaining the most promising leaders. This study was designed to assist the state in that effort and
to provide information that might be of value to others as they deal with these and similar issues in
the United States or in other parts of the world.
Purpose of the study

In 1999, Kochan and Spencer conducted a study to determine Alabama principals reasons for
retiring. A secondary purpose of the study was to examine demographic data related to principal
placement. This study was undertaken by the [Institute] in the College of Education at [state university] as a follow-up to that study. The purposes of the study were to determine: (a) the demographic status of the principals in the state and its relationship to past data and regional and national
trends; (b) the reasons principals have for retiring; (c) whether reasons were similar or dissimilar to
those in the Kochan and Spencer (1998) study; and (d) reasons principals choose to remain in their
positions.
Scholarly significance of the study

Related studies from school reform literature in the United States and countries throughout the
world suggest high-performing schools are led by effective leaders (Dinham, 2007; Gurr et al.,
2005; Hoy and Miskel, 2001; Jacobson, 2010; Leithwood and Riehl, 2005; Wong, 2005). Thus,
it is essential that all schools need good leaders. This is especially true of low-performing schools
and schools with high percentages of poverty (Jacobson, 2010; Leithwood and Strauss, 2009; Murphy and Myers, 2008). It is well documented that for school reform to be meaningful, it must part
43
44
of a holistic, systemic reform (Fullan, 2005; Murphy and Myers, 2008 ) that takes place at the
school level and involves changing the school culture (Hall and Hord, 2001; Murphy and Myers,
2008). This requires highly qualified principals with longevity of service and the proper skill sets to
move schools forward.
The challenges principals face, the standards they must adhere to and their personal characteristics as well as district and student demographic data can play an important role in determining the
likelihood of success as a principal (Fuller and Young, 2009). If external and internal pressures,
politics and time constraints for meaningful organizational goals exist, and personal/family goals
cannot be met, frustrations may become too great and plans for leaving the profession may become
enticing (Weiss, 2005). Thus, in a state such as Alabama, with high levels of poverty, where it is
imperative that school leaders succeed, understanding the stresses principals face so that mechanisms can be implemented to help minimize them, is of particular importance. Demographic data
were examined to help determine if there might be issues related to recruitment and placement
of individuals into the principalship that might be related to longevity issues. Although the study
occurred in a single state, the findings and implications will add to the literature and should have
relevance for others who are seeking to assure that school leaders have the support they need to be
successful so that they will remain in the profession.
Methodology
The Survey of Leadership in Alabama (SOLIA) was used to collect data. The population for this
study was all currently employed principals throughout the state. The State Department of Education provided the researchers with a mailing list. The survey was mailed to Alabamas 1356 principals. A follow-up mailing was conducted approximately six weeks later. Both mailings included
a cover letter guaranteeing anonymity and a postage paid self-addressed return envelope. The survey data was held until supporting 2010 US Census reports and National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data could be used to compare with the collected SOLIA data.
Instrumentation
Principal and school district demographic data such as gender, age, ethnicity, education level, current position, experience, geographic origin, retirement eligibility, school district and community
classificationsthat is, urban, suburban and ruralwere collected in Part I of the survey. Part II of
the survey included questions related to issues that might influence a principals decision to retire
or not retire. Those items were: (1) obtain a position out-of-state and begin a second career; (2)
burnout; (3) political conflicts in the local community; (4) financial inadequacies and uncertainty
in the district; (5) obtain another position in Alabama; (6) time requirements of the position; (7)
need more time with family; (8) frustration with barriers and inability to accomplish goals; (9)
external mandates or requirements from national, state or other sources; (10) internal mandates
from the district; (11) opposition from teachers organizations; and (12) system politics or political
stress. These factors were measured using a 15 Likert scale (from No Influence to Great Influence) and included all items from the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study. Part III included three
open-ended questions aimed at gaining a richer understanding of how the new Alabama Instructional Leadership Standards might affect the (1) quality of the leadership pool, (2) the quantity
of the leadership pool, and (3) how these same standards might influence the principals decision
to remain in the profession, retire or change professions.
44
45
To ensure the questions developed by the researchers accurately measured principals selfperceived factors, which influence their decision to retire or continue, the researchers took several
steps to have the questionnaire examined for content and face validity. Firstly, the demographic
section and the factors influencing retirement section were based on the survey in the Kochan and
Spencer (1999) study. Secondly, a panel of experts in survey research methods and educational
leadership examined the content validity of the survey. The questionnaire was revised based on
the feedback from these experts. Finally, the survey was field tested with eight principals and
superintendents to examine the face validity. Format, phrasing of questions and clarity of purpose
were revised based on the feedback of the field-testing participants.
The data generated from the study were coded and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the
Social Science (SPSS V 17.0). Descriptive statistics were the primary method used to analyze the
demographic data collected (Hair et al., 2009). Descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, standard
deviations and percentages) were used to compare the Kochan and Spencer (1999) and the SOLIA
study.
Cronbachs coefficient alpha was used to assess the internal consistency reliability of the four
scales: the factors influencing retirement scale (FIRS), the factors influencing administrators to
stay scale (FISS), the principal skills scale (PSS), and the importance of principal skills scale
(IOPSS). Usually, an internal consistency estimate of .70 or greater suggests that items are internally consistent (DeVellis, 2011). The scale scores for the domains of FIRS, FISS, PSS and IOPSS
showed internal consistency reliability. The respective alpha scores were: factors influencing retire
(a .855, n 246); factors influencing stay (a .775, n 242); principal skills (a .906, n 247);
and importance of skills scale (a .935, n 245).
Results
Changes in gender
Two hundred fifty-eight principals (20%) responded to the survey (see Table 1). One hundred fiftyone respondents or 59% were male and 106 or 41% were female. In the previous study, Kochan and
Spencer (1999) reported 59% males and 35% females with 6% not responding. While the studys
sample only represented a 19% response rate, Alabama school administrator demographics were
42% female and 58% male, or a close match to the previous sample. It appears that the state has
increased the number of female principals and decreased the gender inequities and these percentages fall within national gender averages. Battle (2009) reports women held 59% of public elementary positions and 29% of public secondary positions for an average of 41% of public
school principal positions. The 6% missing data from the 1999 Kochan and Spencer study cannot
be assumed to be female. If half were included this would put the SOLIA gender for female principals at the reported NCES national average of 44%.
Ethnic identity of principals

Comparing data from the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study to the SOLIA study, it would appear
that the racial composition of principals has not made significant change toward a more racially
balanced picture as compared to state ethnic data (see Table 2). Seventy-five percent of the principals were White, non-Hispanic, 17% were African American, 4% were Hispanic and 4% were
Native American. Nationally 83% of public elementary and secondary schools were led by White
principals, while 10% of elementary and secondary schools were led by African American
45
46
Table 1. Comparison of national principal characteristics: gender Kochan and Spencer/Survey of

Leadership in Alabama (SOLIA).
Gender
NCES
SOLIA
Frequency
SOLIA
Percent
Kochan & Spencer

Percent
Male
Female
Missing
56%
44%
0%
151
106
1
59%
41%
0%
59%
35%
6%
258
100%
100%
Total
NCES: National Center for Education Statistics.
Table 2. Comparison of national principal characteristics: ethnicity Kochan and Spencer/Survey of

Ethnicity
White
African American
Native American
Hispanic
Other
Total
NCES
SOLIA
Frequency
SOLIA
Percent
Kochan & Spencer

Percent
83%
10%
1%
5%
1%
194
45
10
7
2
75%
17%
4%
4%
1%
84%
15%
1%
0%
0%
100%
258
100%
100%
principals. Nationally, Hispanics led 5% of public elementary high schools (Battle, 2009). The percentage of White, non-Hispanic principals in Alabama (75%) is larger than the states census report
on White, non-Hispanic percentages (68%). Disparity is also apparent in [state name]s African
American principalships when comparing to state census figures (United States Census Bureau,
2011). For example, while 17% of schools from the study were reported to be led by African American principals, the state population for this racial group is 26%. Hispanic principals were virtually
equal to the state population. Schools were led by a Hispanic principal 4% of the time and the state
Hispanic population was 3%. Comparing the trends from 1999 there is a small decrease of White,
non-Hispanic, and gains in other minority groups such as Hispanics and Native Americans, but
virtually no gains in the African American principal ranks.
Principal age. There is a dramatic change from data in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study to the
SOLIA study. In this study there were 15% more principals age 50 and above than in the Kochan
and Spencer (1999) study. Also the under 40 and 4049 combined percentages of 42% as compared
to the combined 57% suggest todays school principals are older than those in the Kochan and
Spencer (1999) study. This is in line with national trends. Eighty-six percent of principal respondents were 40 years of age or older. Fifty-seven percent of principal respondents are between the
ages of 50 and 69. Twelve percent of these are between the ages of 60 and 69. Nationally, 85% of
the principals were over the age of 40 and 56% of principals are over the age of 50 (Battle, 2009).
46
47
Table 3. Comparison of national principal characteristics: educational level of principals Kochan and
Spencer/Survey of Leadership in Alabama (SOLIA).
NCES
SOLIA
Frequency
SOLIA
Percent
Kochan & Spencer

Percent
Earned masters degree

Educational specialist degree
Graduate credit towards doctorate
Earned doctorate
Other
58%
31%
N/A
10%
1%
100
43
56
48
11
38%
17%
22%
19%
4%
40%
30%
17%
11%
2%
Total
100%
258
100%
100%
Educational level/degree
Table 4. Comparison of certification levels of principals: Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership in

Alabama (SOLIA).
SOLIA
Frequency
SOLIA
Percent
Kochan & Spencer

Percent
A masters degree
AA specialist degree
Doctorate
Missing
92
137
20
9
36%
53%
8%
3%
36%
59%
1%
4%
Total
258
100%
100%
Certification levels
Principals educational preparation. Data related to educational preparation indicated 39% of principals had a masters degree, 17% had a specialist degree, 22% had graduate credit towards a doctorate degree and 19% had an earned doctorate degree. Table 3 displays the educational degree and
post-degree levels of the principal respondents for both studies. These figures suggest almost 3/5 of
all principals in the state have education beyond a masters degree and 1/5 of all principals have an
earned doctorate degree. Nationally, Battle 2009 reports that 60% of public school principals have
masters degrees, 31% have educational specialist degrees and 9% have doctoral degrees. Our sample appears disproportionately more educated than the national average. Nationally, only 10% of
principals have earned doctorate degrees. In 2010 19% or twice the national average of principals
in the state had earned doctorate degrees. Fifty-nine percent of principals in the Kochan and
Spencer (1999) study had degrees and coursework beyond the masters degree. Since both studies
align it seems reasonable to conclude principals in this state continue to have higher educational
levels than the national average.
Principal certification. The findings related to principal certification, reported in Table 4, indicate
that the percentage of masters degree certification has not changed from the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study but AA, that is, educational specialist (EdS) has trended downward while doctorate certification has trended upward. This suggests that principals in this study sought higher
certification levels at about the same overall percentage rate as their Kochan and Spencer (1999)
counterparts. In general, there appears to be less appeal for the EdS but slightly more appeal for
doctorate-level certification.
47
48
Table 5. Comparison of position prior to principal at current school data: Kochan and Spencer/Survey of
SOLIA
Frequency
SOLIA
Percent
Kochan & Spencer

Percent
Principal
Assistant principal
Teacher
Assistant superintendent/superintendent
Other
41
133
38
20
26
16%
52%
15%
7%
10%
20%
47%
19%
2%
22%
Total
258
100%
100%
Previous position
Table 6. Comparison of principals years in previous position data: Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership
in Alabama (SOLIA).
SOLIA
Frequency
SOLIA
Percent
Kochan & Spencer

Percent
04
510
Subtotal
1119
2030
Missing cases
118
90
208
31
15
2
46%
35%
81%
12%
6%
0%
48%
28%
76%
19%
4%
1%
Total
258
100%
100%
Years in position
Previous positions of principals. Principals were asked to report previous positions that they had held
and how many years they had been in previous positions. Table 5 indicates that, as in the Kochan
and Spencer (1999) study, principals served in traditional roles as assistant principals 52% of the time
prior to becoming a principal. They served as teachers (15%) or principals in other schools 16% of
the time prior to becoming the principal in their present assignment. Two respondents served as athletic coaches/administrators, two served as superintendents, three as assistant superintendents and 13
or 5% in some other supervisory role prior to becoming the principal of their present school. Slightly
more had been principals and slightly less assistants with fewer going from teacher to principal than
in the earlier study. Most interesting were findings that 5% more went from the superintendency to
the principalship and 12% more went from other positions in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study.
Apparently traditional pathways to the principalship are important in Alabama.
Principals and their years in previous positions. Most principals served in their prior position for less
than 10 years. Eighty-one percent or 208 principals indicated they served in a prior position to their
present role as principal for less than 10 years. If we combine the above information with information from Table 6, it seems evident that principals were assistant principals or teachers prior to
becoming principals and most served in these positions for less than 10 years. Said another way,
principals are likely to be administrators for the majority of their career and are appointed to these
positions rather early in their career. Percentages are very similar to what was found in the Kochan
and Spencer (1999) study.
48
49
Table 7. Comparison of national principal characteristics: age Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership in
Alabama (SOLIA).
Age of principal
Under 40
4049
50 and above
Total
NCES
SOLIA
Frequency
SOLIA
Percent
Kochan & Spencer

Percent
13%
30%
57%
37
72
149
14%
28%
58%
10%
47%
43%
100%
258
100%
100%
Origin of principal: current or other school system

When principals were asked if their prior position was in the same system they currently served in,
196 or 76% indicated they were serving in the same system (see Table 8). Fifty-nine or 23% came
from another system to the present system. Internal mobility and job advancement seem to primarily
come from internal advancements. Less than 25% of administrators are appointed from outside the
system. However, that percent has increased somewhat since the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study.
Level of school principalship: elementary, middle or high school. One hundred ten or 43% of principal
respondents indicated they served pre-Kindergarten and/or elementary schools (see Table 9). Sixteen percent or 39 principals were administrators in middle schools while 16% or 40 principals
were administrators in high schools. In addition, 12% or 32 were principals of K12 schools and
37 or 14% were principals of other types of schools.
School community: rural, urban or suburban. Fifty-five percent or 141 principals reported they led
rural schools while 17% headed urban schools and 24% headed suburban schools (see Table 10).
Principals and retirement plans

Retirement eligibility. When asked what year they were eligible for retirement, 50% of respondents
indicated that they were eligible within one year of the survey distribution. Seventy-one percent
were eligible to retire by 2013 or 3 years from the time of the survey. By the year 2015, 82%
of the principals in this state will be eligible to retire. Many more are eligible to retire within the
year than were able in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study, but those being able to retire within
Table 8. Origin of principal: current or other school system Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership in
Alabama (SOLIA).
SOLIA
frequency
SOLIA
percent
Kochan & Spencer

percent
Current system
Another system
Missing cases
196
59
3
76%
23%
1%
83%
17%
0%
Total
258
100%
100%
System origin prior to appointment
49
50
Table 9. School principalship: current position Survey of Leadership in Alabama.

Level of school
Frequency
Percent
Pre-K through 6th grade

Middle school
High school
K through 12th grade
Other
110
39
40
32
37
43%
15%
16%
12%
14%
Total
258
100%
Table 10. School community: rural, urban, suburban Survey of Leadership in Alabama.
Community served
Frequency
Percent
Rural school
Suburban school
Urban
Other
141
61
45
11
55%
24%
17%
4%
Total
258
100%
5 years is substantially more at 82%. These data are consistent with the data reported in Table 7,
which indicated that principals in the SOLIA study are older than those in the Kochan and Spencer
(1999) research. Responses to this question are detailed in Table 11.
Year planning to retire. The year a principal plans to retire differs from the year that they are eligible
to retire. This question is suggestive of when the principal is actually planning to leave the school
system regardless of eligibility to retire. In 2012, 63% planned to retire. In the year 2015, 75% are
planning to retire. These figures are less than the year eligible for retirement, but still suggest a high
rate of retirement for principals in this state by the year 2015. Interestingly, the percent of principals who planned to retire when they could was higher in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study
than the SOLIA study. Eligibility to retire and plans to retire do not always match. Some of this
may be related to the economic conditions of the time. Some of these principals may stay longer
than the eligibility to retire year and others may leave earlier due to health or family problems.
However, whatever changes are made in the individuals decisions, it appears that there will be
a staggering number of school leaders who can and are planning to leave the profession within the
next few years. These data are reported in Table 12.
Factors influencing principals to retire

In both surveys, Kochan and Spencer (1999) and SOLIA, principals were asked to indicate what
factors might influence their decision to retire as a principal. The data for the follow-up survey is
described in Table 13. Factors are listed in priority order along with a comparison with the selection order of principals in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study. The most important factor influencing the decision to retire in the SOLIA study was external mandates from national or state
sources (mean 3.48). The top reason in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study was obtaining
another position. The second most important factor was a need to spend more time with their
50
51
Table 11. Comparison of year principal is eligible to retire: Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership in
Alabama (SOLIA).
Year eligible to
retire SOLIA data
(based on 25 yrs)
2010
2013 (3 yrs out)
2015(5 yrs out)
2032
SOLIA
cumulative
frequency
SOLIA
cumulative
percent
Kochan & Spencer

cumulative
percent
Year eligible to retire

Kochan & Spencer
(based on 25 yrs)
126
152
205
258
51%
71%
82%
100%
17%
70%
87%
100%
1997
2002 (5 yrs out)
2008 (10 yrs out)
2022
Table 12. Year principal planning to retire Survey of Leadership in Alabama (SOLIA) data.
Year planning to
retire SOLIA
(based on 25 yrs)
2010
2012
2015
2032
SOLIA
cumulative
frequency
SOLIA
cumulative
percent
Kochan & Spencer

cumulative
percent
Year eligible to retire

Kochan & Spencer
(based on 25 yrs)
33
111
142
258
32%
63%
75%
100%
40%
79%
100%
1997
2002
2008
2002
family (mean 3.19) and closely associated to this was the third most important factor influencing
retirement: time requirements of the position (mean 2.98). Principals in the Kochan and Spencer
(1999) study found political issues as the second reason they would retire, while for principals in
SOLIA, these issues were ranked as seventh or ninth. Principals ranked frustration with barriers
and the inability to accomplish goals (mean 2.91) as their fourth reason to consider retirement.
Their counterparts in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study ranked this as fourth. Internal or district
mandates and requirements was the fifth most reported reason for considering retirement. The factor causing the least influence on the decision to retire was opposition from teacher organizations
such as the Alabama Educators Association (AEA) (mean 1.87). It should be noted that Alabama
is a non-union state, so although there is a strong teacher association, they do not have the right to
strike, nor do they engage in school district contract negotiations.
The top five reasons for retiring in SOLIA and in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) studies appear
dramatically different. Principals in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study stated that they would
leave their positions primarily to get a job somewhere else, whereas principals in the SOLIA study
did not even seem to consider that as something they might want to do. It appears that external
mandates and job expectations are taking their toll on these principals and their families.
Factors influencing principals to remain in their current position

Principals were asked to consider factors that might influence their decision not to retire. This
question was new to the survey so there are no Kochan and Spencer (1999) comparative data.
These data are reported in Table 14. The most important factor influencing the decision not to retire
was I can make a difference in student lives (mean 4.38). Support from the community and
colleagues (mean 4.16) and enjoying the work of principal (mean 4.13) were also important
reasons to stay. Another significant reason to stay was the support principals expressed they had
51
52
Table 13. Factors influencing the decision to retire: Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership in Alabama
(SOLIA).
Factor influencing retirement

External mandates or requirements
from national, state or other
Need for more time with family
Time requirements of the position
Frustration with barriers
Internal mandates
Burnout
System politics
Financial inadequacies in school
System
Political conflicts in local
Community
Obtain other position in state
Obtain position outside state
Opposition from teacher
organizations
Top 5 reasons
Kochan &
Spencer
Mean
SOLIA
Standard
deviation
SOLIA
Top 5
reasons
SOLIA
3.48
1.35
3.19
2.98
2.91
2.85
2.74
2.73
2.35
1.40
1.42
1.36
1.24
1.41
1.35
1.26
X
X
X
X
2.32
1.41
2 tie
2.27
2.21
1.87
1.42
1.43
1.04
1
4
5
3
2 tie
Table 14. Reasons NOT to retire Survey of Leadership in Alabama.

Reasons NOT to retire
Mean
Standard deviation
I can make a difference in student lives

Support by community and colleagues
Still enjoy principals work
Support from family
Personal finances
Not sure what will do if retire
4.38
4.16
4.13
4.08
3.73
2.50
.899
1.04
1.12
1.06
1.26
1.36
from their family (mean 4.08). Personal finances (mean 3.73) was the fifth most important
reason to stay. In relation to other factors, one that did not appear to be an important consideration
for staying was being worried about what to do after they retired (mean 2.50). These questions
were not asked in Kochan and Spencer (1999) and so comparisons cannot be made. The support
principals receive from the community, family and faculty and the accomplishments that come
from working with children seem to be important factors for principals to remain in their positions.
Discussion and implications

A demographic view of the principalships
There are four main issues that should be addressed in regards to the demographic data garnered
from the study. Firstly, gender and racial make-up of the present administrative force appears to be
trending towards a more equitable balance with women, but not with all ethnic minority groups.
Women in Alabama make up the majority, 75%, of the teaching ranks in this state but only hold
52
53
41% of the principal positions. In addition, half of the state population, 51%, is female. Students,
and especially female students, need to see their gender in leadership roles. While Alabama has
made a positive trend in female principals during the last decade, moving from 35% to 41%,
researchers would be willing to speculate most of these positional gains have been made at the elementary school level. For example, nationally only 26% of women hold secondary principal positions while they held 56% of the elementary positions for a national average of 41%. Further
research should be conducted in the state and on a national level as to why secondary school principalships have persistently been a barrier for women.
A huge area of concern arises when looking at the trend for African American principals. They
are lagging behind their White counterparts in principal positions and have not made a significant
gain since the last study was done over a decade ago. While Alabama appears to have more African
American principals, 17%, than the NCES (2010) national average of 10%, it does not represent
the states overall racial composition of 26% nor does it represent the states non-White student
population of 41%, a statistic that has been on the rise during the last decade (SingletonRickman, 2010). In addition, recent data indicates that for the first time in history, public schools
in the south are serving more poverty-stricken minority students than any other population group.
Those that can afford private schools are continuing to leave and thus the balance has now shifted
to public schools serving poor and minority populations in this part of the country (Suitts, 2010).
Hispanics appear to be keeping pace in 2010. Even Native American principals have
increased. In relation to all of these changes if one looks at the percentage of White principals
it appears to have declined by 9%. That 9% decrease in White principals is largely explained
by the 4% Hispanic and Native American principals and the meager 2% increase in African
American principals. If these numbers are representative of what is going on in the state, then
African Americans, who represent the second largest group in Alabama, are not keeping pace
with other minority group principals.
Diversity is an important concept for all school personnel and especially those in leadership
positions (ALSDE, 2010; Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium, 2008; University
Council of Educational Administration, 2010). There is a growing recognition that the students
attending schools will best be served by adults who can understand their diverse backgrounds
(Howard, 2006; Leithwood et al., 2010; Murphy and Myers, 2008). In addition, these students
deserve to have role models in the community. Superintendents and community leaders in the state
should investigate why this situation continues to exist.
The state could address this issue in a number of ways. Firstly, there should be an examination
as to whether African Americans are entering masters programs to receive certification in the state
and if they are not, reasons should be investigated. If funding is an issue, scholarships or forgiveness loans might be considered for minorities and females to encourage their entry into the principal realm. In addition, mentoring programs should be considered as a means of encouraging
minorities and women to enter administrative avenues. If minorities and women are gaining their
degrees but not entering the administrative realms, the reasons should be examined.
A third factor for this state is to address the aging of the principal population. In Alabama the
majority of principals are 50 years or older. This is a large increase in comparison to the Kochan
and Spencer (1999) study. If we compare the aging principal data with eligibility to retire and plans
to retire data (Tables 11 and 12), the state numbers become almost overwhelming. By the year
2015, 82% of principals in Alabama are eligible to retire and 75% of them plan to retire. It is very
likely there will be a tremendous shortage over the next several decades. With the principals becoming older and planning to retire, the issue of who will replace them becomes paramount.
53
54
Some research has suggested extensive mentoring programs (Educational Research Service,
2000), especially for systems that face critical shortages, that is, rural and poverty-stricken areas,
as strategies to deal with the issue of replacing retiring principals and assuring that they will stay in
their positions. However, with present economic conditions professional development funds from
state sources have been completely halted. School systems that do mentor are doing so with no
resource support.
In Alabama, principal development and mentoring continues to primarily be addressed through
higher education institutions. This is not a bad thing. A recent redesign of state college and university educational leadership programs in 20072008 has been geared to assure that school systems
are receiving better leadership preparation. Some of these institutions are beginning to track their
graduates, but it is still too early to tell their impact. Since most of the principals come from the
ranks of the assistant principalship, the state may wish to address policy changes that permit additional funding for schools to hire more assistant principals during the next five years to assure a
more well-trained principal pool. A few years ago, the state was considering funding more extensive internship programs for those gaining graduate leadership degrees. Although funding is tight,
funding full year internships would strengthen the principalship program, provide extra help to
schools, and assure that as principals retire, there will be individuals in place who can replace them
more easily and more successfully because of their internship experiences. A policy that needs to
be addressed by Alabama is mentoring assistant principals. There is no formal mentoring program
sponsored by any branch of state government. Some more affluent local systems may have such
programs, but it is doubtful that any exist within rural school systems.
The final demographic to be considered is that principals in Alabama appear to be more educated than their national counterparts. In the last decade masters degrees have remained stable
at 40%. Specialist degrees have decreased from 30% to 17%, but graduate credit towards a doctorate degree and earned doctorates have increased from the Kochan and Spencer (1999) 28% figure to 41% in the SOLIA study. These findings are supported by comparing the Kochan and
Spencer (1999) and SOLIA study certification levels of principals. This is an interesting finding.
It does not match the demographics of the rest of the state, which has a lower percentage of college
graduates than the nation and there is no indication as to why this higher education level exists.
This would be an area for further study. In addition, it might be of value to determine what types
of schools these individuals serve and whether their student performance levels are higher than
those of principals without doctoral degrees.
Results from our study indicated that 55% of school districts in the state are rural. This is supported by census data (United States Census Bureau, 2011). In addition, most school systems promote administrators from teaching or assistant principal ranks (Table 5). In addition, the principals
reported that they were promoted to their current position after serving in another capacity within
the same system 76% of the time.
It might be advantageous for Alabama school systems to determine it this method for selection
of principals is somehow excluding minorities and women. It might be of value for school systems
to identify and groom minorities, particularly African Americans and females, within their community to take the school leadership positions. Grow-your-own programs such as Georgias Leadership Institute for School Improvement (www.galeaders.org) or the Australian Central Territory
(ACT) School Leadership Framework (2011) (http://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/
0011/64298/SchoolImprovementFramework.pdf) might be considered as models. The Alabama
State Department of Education should consider working with the legislature to put policies in place
to foster similar initiatives in Alabama.
54
55
Principal retention or principal attrition: why do they choose to stay or go?

In 1999 Kochan and Spencer found that the most critical reasons principals chose to leave was to
take a position elsewhere in the state, political conflict in the local community and the school system, burnout, leaving to take a position outside the state and frustration with barriers. The only one
of these that made the top five in the SOLIA study was frustration with barriers and it was ranked
fifth. The five top reasons in the SOLIA study were directly or indirectly related to external mandates from the national and state level or internal mandates from the school system. Time, as the
Educational Research Service suggested in 2000, has become a major problem for principals. They
are spending more and more time on school issues and less time at home with their families. Given
the same choices, the time since the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study showed a dramatic trend for
principals in Alabama. Research suggested this trend would occur, and it did (Educational
Research Service, 2000). No doubt the age of accountability and No Child Left Behind has taken
its toll on educators.
One of the most powerful findings from the SOLIA study, and an area that is not widely examined, was exploring why principals might stay in their positions, rather than choosing to retire. The
top five reasons why they might stay all focused on positive relationships with the community, colleagues, students and families (Table 14). Principals understand the need for relationship building.
Research informs teachers and administrators of the importance in establishing positive relationships with stakeholder groups. In fact, most national organizations associated with instructional
leadership web the concept of relationship building in their standards by suggesting collaboration,
collegial relationships, involving community stakeholders, defining leadership as shared, and
recognizing the diversity and needs of students and their families (ALSDE, 2010; Interstate School
Leaders Licensure Consortium, 2008). Principals appear to have this part of the message right and
they obviously feel if they can do this, then it is worth staying. After all, making a difference in
students lives is their number one reason for staying.
States and school systems need to find a way to combine these reasons for leaving and reasons
for staying and find solutions to the factors for leaving and foster the reasons for staying. This is
especially important in poverty-stricken communities, rural communities or schools with high
numbers of minority students. Schools with multiple disadvantages such as those described above
have a difficult time retaining their leaders (Papa, 2007). Since principals are being held responsible for just about everything, it will be important to find ways to support the relationship building
principals see as critical to their success.
A study by Bottery et al. (2008) indicated that while school leaders in Great Britain viewed
external mandates as oppressive and adversarial, head teachers in Hong Kong had few complaints about these mandates and had a favorable attitude toward them. They propose that some
of this difference may be related to the greater flexibility of the implementation of these mandates and the differences in how procedures were monitored by outside agencies. It might be useful for the State Department of Education to meet with the state principal association and state
superintendents to address whether there are external mandates that might be reconsidered and
whether there are ways to make the principalship less controlled by the state, while still meeting
the accountability needs established by the legislature. Perhaps a review of all policies would be
a good starting point.
Tucker (2010) found that one of the greatest causes of stress for school leaders was a lack of
systems of support. One way to provide such support systems is through mentoring programs
within school leader support networks (Silver et al., 2009). Another more comprehensive strategy
55
56
is to change the role of the school leaders. There is a growing consensus that todays complex, rapidly changing global world may require school leadership models that rely on seeing the principal
not as the person in charge of the school, but rather as a facilitator, collaborator and as a team
player (DeLeon, 2006: 4). Spillane (2006) explains that the important part of distributive leadership is the joint interactions (p.3) and collective actions (p.4) of the leader and followers. He
suggests that leadership is best done through relationship building. Others suggest a democratic
brand of leadership that calls for high levels of participation from members in the organization
(Begley and Zaretsky, 2004; Kensler, 2010; Kensler et al., 2009; Murphy, 2002). The state of Alabama has already begun the process of creating this type of leadership model. It recently mandated
the use of school leadership teams comprised of teachers and school leaders to work as a team in
fostering student learning and school success. Research on the perceptions of principals regarding
this initiative should be conducted over the next few years to see if their reasons for contemplating
retirement and the percent that wish to retire changes.
Thomson (2008) suggests that principals and educational leaders initiate strategies to use the
media to tell their story in terms of the stresses they are living with to gain public support for the
lessening of demands upon them and their schools. He suggests that such initiatives might foster an
increase in responsibility from the broader community for dealing with the contextual elements in
the broader community that add to school failure. He further proposes that such actions may foster
public support and in turn make the job of school leader more tenable.
Concluding thoughts and reflections

The SOLIA study captured information related to the demographic make-up of principals in
Alabama and presented a snapshot of the stresses they are under, the things that keep them going,
and their reasons for considering leaving the profession. In several respects, Alabama is facing the
same issues and concerns expressed across the nation and world in terms of attracting and retaining
qualified leaders in our schools. The voices from this study mirror those of other national and international studies and add some important knowledge to our understanding of the perceptions and
feelings of school leaders. We hope these voices help to stimulate dialogue and encourage the
development of strategies to support and develop school leaders in Alabama and in similar situations and locations throughout the world, dealing with issues of principal stress, retention and
recruitment. It is also our hope that additional studies into reasons why principals leave and stay
in their positions and strategies to support them will be implemented throughout the world.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit
sectors.
Acknowledgment
We extend our appreciation to Frances K Kochan and William Spencer for allowing us to compare SOLIA
data with those collected in their 1999 study.
References
Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) (2010) Available at: http://www.alsde.edu/html/home.asp
(accessed 1 March 2010).
56
57
Anderson M, Kleinhenz E, Mulford B, et al. (2008) Professional learning of school leaders in Australia. In:
Lumby J, Crow G and Pashiards P (eds) International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of
School Leaders. New York, NY: Routledge.
Australian Council for Educational Leaders (ACEL) (2013) The ACEL leadership capability framework. Available at: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/introducing_the_acel_leadership_capability_framewo,27729.
html?issueID=11775 (accessed October 26 2013).
Battle D (2009) Characteristics of Public, Private, and Bureau of Indian Education Elementary and Secondary
School Principals in the United States: Results From the 200708 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2009323). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education.
Begley PT and Zaretsky L (2004) Democratic school leadership in Canadas public school systems: professional value and social ethic. Journal of Educational Administration 42(6): 640655.
Bottery M, Ngai G, Wong PM, et al. (2008) Leaders and contexts: Comparing English and Hong Kong perceptions of educational challenges. International Studies in Educational Administration 36(1): 5671.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLB) (2005) Occupational Outlook Handbook, 20062007. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Labor. Available at: http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos007.htm (accessed 5 July 2009).
Bush T (2009) Leadership development and school improvement: Contemporary issues in leadership development. Educational Review 61(4): 375389.
Cantano N and Stronge JH (2007) What do we expect of school principals? Congruence between principal
evaluation and performance standards. International Journal of Leadership in Education 10(4): 379399.
Chalker DM (2002) Leadership for Rural Schools: Lessons for all Educators. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Chaplain RP (2001) Stress and job satisfaction among primary headteachers: A question of balance? Educational Management and Administration 29(2): 197215.
Cowie M and Crawford M (2009) Headteacher preparation programmes in England and Scotland: do they
make a difference for the first-year head? School Leadership and Management 29(1): 521.
Darling-Hammond L (2000) How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education 51(3): 166173.
DeLeon AG (2006) The school leadership crisis: Have school principals been left behind? Carnegie Reporter,
4(1): 15.
DeVellis RF (2011) Scale development: Theory and development. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Dinham S (2007) How schools get moving and keep improving: Leadership for teacher learning, student
success and school renewal. Australian Council for Educational Research 51(3): 263275.
Doud JL and Keller EP (1998) The k-8 Principal in 1998: A Ten-year Study. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP).
Educational Research Service (1998) Is there a Shortage of Qualified Candidates for Openings in the Principalship? Washington, DC: Author.
Educational Research Service; National Association of Elementary School Principals; and National Association of Secondary School Principals (2000) The Principal, Keystone of a High-achieving School: Attracting and Keeping the Leaders we need. Arlington, VA: Authors.
Englezakis D (2002) Occupational stress, job satisfaction and coping actions among Cyprus headteachers. In:
Baldacchine G and Farrugia CJ (eds) Educational Planning and Management in Small States: Concepts
and Experiences. London: Commonwealth Secretariat, pp.119134.
Ferrandino VL (2001) Challenges for 21st-Century Elementary School Principals. Kappan 82(6): 440442.
Fullan M (2005) Leadership and Sustainability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fuller E and Young M (2009) Texas High School Project Leadership Initiative Issue Brief 1: Tenure and
Retention of Newly Hired Principals in Texas. Austin, TX: University Council for Educational Administration &Department of Educational Administration, The University of Texas at Austin.
57
58
Ginsberg R and Multon KD (2011) Leading through a fiscal nightmare: The impact on principals and superintendents. Kappan 92(8): 4247.
Gurr D, Drysdate L and Mulford B (2005) Successful principal leadership: Australian case studies. Journal of
Educational Administration 43(6): 539551.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. (2009) Multivariate Data Analysis: Global Edition. 7th ed. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Hall GE and Hord SM (2001) Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles and Potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hallinger P (2003) School leadership preparation and development in global perspective: Future challenges
and opportunities. In: Hallinger P (ed) Reshaping the Landscape of School Leadership Development.
Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger, pp.289300.
Hattie J (2003, October) Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented to
Australian Council research annual conference, Melbourne. Available at: http://www.educationallea
ders.govt.nz/Pedagogy-and-assessment/Evidence-based-leadership/Measuring-learning/Teachers-Make-aDifference-What-is-the-Research-Evidence (accessed 14 September 2011).
Hean LL and Tin LG (2008) Envisioning in school leadership preparation and practice: The case of Singapore. International Studies in Educational Administration 36(1): 7280.
Howard G (2006) We Cant Teach What We Dont Know: White Teachers, Multiracial Schools. 2nd ed. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Hoy W and Miskel C (2001) Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Random
House.
Ingvarson L and Anderson M (2007) Standards for leadership: Gateway to a stronger profession. Australian
Council for Educational Research (ACER). Available at: http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2007/2 (accessed 30 November 2011).
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (2008) Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC
2008. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Available at: http://www.ccsso.org/pub
lications/details.cfm?PublicationID365 (accessed 29 June 2009).
Jacobson S (2010) Leadership effects on student achievement and sustained school success. International
Journal of Educational Management 25(1): 3344.
Jacobson SL and Bezzina C (2010) Effects of leadership on student academic/affective achievement. In:
Lumby J, Crow G and Pashiards P (eds) International Handbook on the Preparation and Development
of School Leaders. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 81103.
Kensler LAW (2010) Designing democratic community for social justice. International Journal of Urban
Educational Leadership 4(1): 121.
Kensler LAW, Caskie GIL, Barber ME, et al. (2009) The ecology of democratic learning communities: Faculty
trust and continuous learning in public middle schools. Journal of School Leadership 19(6): 697734.
Kersten T and Kersten J (2006) Development: Have you considered school administration. Kappa Delta Pi
Record 42(3): 120123.
Kochan F (2010) The deans role in educational leadership program redesign: The Alabama perspective.
Journal of Research in Educational Leadership 5(12.8): 507530.
Kochan F, Jackson B and Duke D (1999) Voices from the Firing Line: A Study of Educational Leaders
Perceptions of their Job, the Challenges they Face, and their Preparation Programs. Columbus, MO:
University Council for Educational Administrators.
Kochan F and Spencer WA (1999) Preparing Leaders for Tomorrows Schools: The Practitioners Perspectives. Research in the Schools 6(1): 916.
Kutash J, Nico E, Gorin E, et al. (2010) School turnaround: A brief overview of the landscape and key issues.
FSG Social Impact Advisors. Boston, MA: FSG Social Impact Advisors.
58
59
Leithwood K, Harris A and Strauss T (2010) Leading School Turnaround: How Successful Leaders Transform
Low-Performing Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood K and Riehl C (2005) What we know about successful school leadership. In: Firestone W and
Riehl C (eds) A New Agenda: Directions for Research on Educational Leadership. New York: Teachers
College Press, pp.2247.
Leithwood K, Seashore-Louis K, Anderson S, et al. (2004) How leadership influences student learning.
Learning from Leadership Project, University of Minnesota and University of Toronto, commissioned
by the Wallace Foundation.
Leithwood K and Strauss T (2009) Turnaround schools: Leadership lessons. Education Canada 49(2):
2629.
Lugg C, Bulkley K, Firestone W, et al. (2002) The contextual terrain facing educational leaders. In: Murphy J
(ed) The Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining Leadership for the 21st century, 101st Yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.
Lumby J, Walker A, Bryant M, et al. (2009) Research on leadership preparation in a global context. In: Young
MD, Crow GM, Murphy J, et al. Handbook of Research on the Education of School Leaders. New York:
Routledge.
Murphy J (2002) Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints. Educational Administration Quarterly 38(2): 176191.
Murphy J and Datnow A (eds) (2003) Leadership for School Reform: Lessons from Comprehensive Reform
Designs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Murphy J and Myers C (2008) Turning around Failing Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
New South Wales Government (NSW) (2011) Leading and managing the school. Available at: https://www.
det.nsw.edu.au/policies/general_man/accountability/lead_sch/PD20040024.shtml (accessed 26 October
2013).
No Child Left Behind (2001) (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115, Stat. 1425 (2001).
Papa F (2007) Why do principals change schools? A multivariate analysis of principal retention. Leadership
and Policy in Schools 6: 267290.
Reames E (2010) Shifting paradigms: Redesigning a principal preparation programs curriculum. Journal of
Research on Leadership Education 5(12.5): 436459.
Robinson VMJ and Timperley HS (2007) The leadership of the improvement of teaching and learning lessons
from initiatives with positive outcomes for students. Australian Journal of Education 51(3): 247262.
Rowe KJ (2003, October) The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students experiences and
outcomes of schooling. Australian Council for Educational Research Conference. Sydney. Available at:
http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article1001&contextresearch_conference_2003&seiredir1#search%22Rowe%2C%20K%202003%20Australia%22 (accessed 26 October 2013).
Roza M (2003) A Matter of Definition: Is there truly a Shortage of School Principals? Seattle: University of
Washington, Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Seashore-Louis K, Leithwood K, Wahlstrom WL, et al. (2010) Learning from leadership: Investigating the
links to improved student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, University
of Minnesota and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, and University of Toronto 42: 50.
Silver M, Lochmiller CR, Coland MA, et al. (2009) Supporting new school leaders: Findings from a
university-based leadership coaching program for new administrators. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnerships in Learning 17(3): 215232.
Southern Regional Education Board (2006) Schools Cant Wait: Accelerating the Redesign of University Preparation Programs. Atlanta, GA: Author. Available at: http://publications.sreb.org/2006/06_Schools_
Cant_Wait.pdf (accessed 15 July 2009).
59
60
Southern Regional Educational Board (2007) Schools Need Good Leaders Now: State Progress in Creating
Learner-centered School Leadership System. Atlanta, GA: Author.
Spillane JP (2006) Distributive Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Suitts S (2010) A New Diverse Majority: Students of Color in the Souths Public Schools Southern Education
Foundation Research Report. Atlanta, GA: Southern Education Foundation.
Thomson P (2008) Answering back to policy? Headteachers stress and the logic of the sympathetic interview.
Journal of Education Policy 23(6): 649667.
Townsend T (2009) Third millennium leaders: Thinking and acting both locally and globally. Leadership and
Policy in Schools 8(4): 355379.
Tsiakkiros A and Pashiardis P (2002) Occupational stress of schools teachers, and headteachers: A qualitative approach. Pedagogical Review 33: 195213.
Tsiakkiros A and Pashiardis P (2006) Occupational stress among Cyprus headteachers: Sources and coping
strategies. International Studies in Educational Administration 34(2):100114.
Tucker S (2010) An investigation of the stresses, pressures, and challenges faced by primary school head
teachers in context of organizational change in schools. Journal of Social Work Practice 2(24): 6374.
University Council of Educational Administration (2010) Values, Vision and Goals. Austin, TX: University
Council of Educational Administration. Available at: http://www.ucea.org/values-vision-goals/ (accessed
1 April 2010).
United States Census Bureau (2000) Unites States Census Bureau Report. Washington, DC: United States
Census Bureau. Available at: http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/al.html (accessed 15 July 2009).
United States Census Bureau (2011) American FactFinder. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.
Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-17.pdf (accessed 28 February 2010).
Walker A, Hallinger P and Qian HY (2007) Leadership development for school effectiveness and improvement in East Asia. In: Townsend T (ed.) International Handbook of School Effectiveness and School
Improvement. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp.659677.
Weiss S (2005) District and school leadership. The Progress of Education Reform 6(2): 2328.
Wong K (2005) Conditions and practice of successful principalship in Shanghai. Journal of Educational
Administration 43(6): 552562.
Young MD and Grogan M (2008) Leadership preparation and development in North America. In: Lumby J,
Crow G and Pashiards P (eds) International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of School
Leaders. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.303324.
Author biographies
Ellen H. Reames is an Associate Professor and Educational Programme Coordinator at Auburn
University, USA.
Frances K. Kochan is Wayne T Smith Distinguished Professor in the Department of Educational
Foundations, Leadership and Technology, Auburn University, USA.
Linxiang Zhu is an assistant professor at Georgia Southern University, USA.
60

Educational Management Administration &amp; Leadership 2014 Reames 40 60

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Educational Management Administration &amp; Leadership 2014 Reames 40 60

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Article

Factors influencing principals

Ellen H. Reames, Frances K. Kochan and Linxiang Zhu

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at Uni Politehnica on March 30, 2016

Reames et al.: Factors influencing principals retirement decisions

School-related factors and student success

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at Uni Politehnica on March 30, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(1)

School leadership role

Principal shortages in the United States

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at Uni Politehnica on March 30, 2016

Reames et al.: Factors influencing principals retirement decisions

Purpose of the study

Scholarly significance of the study

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at Uni Politehnica on March 30, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(1)

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at Uni Politehnica on March 30, 2016

Reames et al.: Factors influencing principals retirement decisions

Ethnic identity of principals

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at Uni Politehnica on March 30, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(1)

Table 1. Comparison of national principal characteristics: gender Kochan and Spencer/Survey of

Kochan & Spencer

Table 2. Comparison of national principal characteristics: ethnicity Kochan and Spencer/Survey of

Kochan & Spencer

NCES: National Center for Education Statistics.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at Uni Politehnica on March 30, 2016

Reames et al.: Factors influencing principals retirement decisions

Kochan & Spencer

Earned masters degree

NCES: National Center for Education Statistics.

Table 4. Comparison of certification levels of principals: Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership in

Kochan & Spencer

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at Uni Politehnica on March 30, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(1)

Kochan & Spencer

Kochan & Spencer

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at Uni Politehnica on March 30, 2016

Reames et al.: Factors influencing principals retirement decisions

Kochan & Spencer

NCES: National Center for Education Statistics.

Origin of principal: current or other school system

Principals and retirement plans

Kochan & Spencer

System origin prior to appointment

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at Uni Politehnica on March 30, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(1)

Table 9. School principalship: current position Survey of Leadership in Alabama.

Pre-K through 6th grade

Factors influencing principals to retire

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at Uni Politehnica on March 30, 2016

Reames et al.: Factors influencing principals retirement decisions

Kochan & Spencer

Year eligible to retire

Kochan & Spencer

Year eligible to retire

Factors influencing principals to remain in their current position

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at Uni Politehnica on March 30, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(1)

Factor influencing retirement

Table 14. Reasons NOT to retire Survey of Leadership in Alabama.

I can make a difference in student lives

Discussion and implications

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at Uni Politehnica on March 30, 2016

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2014 Reames 40 60

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2014 Reames 40 60