Introduction

School leadership is essential to school effectiveness and improvement. Recent research has demonstrated the important influence that principals can have on student learning (Leithwood et al, 2004). As Maine and the nation have rallied to improve schools, concerns about school principal quality, recruitment, turnover, and work conditions have risen. Since the mid-1980s, we have witnessed a steady stream of articles and studies raising doubts that the principalship is in good health (Fenstermacher, 1999; Murphy, 1992).

In our 2001 report, we noted that Maine school boards, educator associations, and school administrators agree that the principal is a key player in the health and success of our schools. They agree, as well, that our state has yet to address directly the “school leadership crisis” highlighted in 1999 at a Select Seminar conducted by the Maine Leadership Consortium. Indeed, as performance demands on Maine schools, educators, and communities have continued to rise, the challenges detailed in two 1998 studies on the principalship (Educational Research Service, 1998; Keller, 1998) and reinforced by our two earlier studies of Maine principals have grown steeper. These, in brief, are: 1) attracting the best educators to the principalship; 2) supporting them professionally so that the management requirements of running the school do not eclipse the leadership of top-notch learning programs for children and teachers; and 3) making this work manageable and personally rewarding – not at the cost of personal commitments and priorities.

A team from the University of Maine led by Gordon Donaldson has, since 1997, sought to provide a research base to inform the state’s efforts to strengthen school leadership. The Maine Principal Survey solicits information from principals regarding how they experience their work, conditions that influence their satisfaction and success, and demographic data on principals and their schools.

Following the first administration of the Maine Principal Survey to all principals and assistant principals by Donaldson and Charles Hausman in 1997, the MPS was again administered in 2001 by Donaldson, Don Buckingham and Ted Coladarci. These earlier studies were reported through publications (Donaldson & Hausman, 1998; 1999; Hausman et al., 2002; Donaldson, Buckingham, and Coladarci, 2003) and presentations in Maine and to national audiences.

This monograph describes the results of the 2005 survey and compares the profile of

Maine principals that emerges from these results with the 1997 and 2001 profiles. The trend data reported here can provide a powerful basis for districts, professional groups, and policy makers to use in planning the improvement of conditions for leadership in Maine schools. We plan to continue this longitudinal study in 2009.

For more detailed data or to share observations and comments, readers are encouraged to contact any of the authors as follows: Gordon Donaldson, (gordon.donaldson@umit.maine.edu); George Marnik, (george.marnik@umit.maine.edu); or Don Buckingham, (dbuckingham@sedgwick.es.u76.k12.me.us).

The Survey

In April 2005, surveys and cover letters were mailed to the 957 administrators who were listed on the Maine Department of Education’s roster of 2004-2005 principals and assistant principals in K-12 public education. The survey was structured to examine Maine principals’ activity patterns, reactions to their jobs, career patterns, and attitudes.

Of the 957 questionnaires mailed, 414 were returned and were usable in the final study, a response rate of 43% (vs. 53% in 2001 and 63% in 1997). Of these respondents, 23% were assistant principals; 5% were teaching principals; and the remainder (72%) were supervising principals. The results reported below are restricted to the latter two groups: the 315 Maine principals who served as the only administrator or the supervising administrator of a Maine school in 2005. These 315 principals and teaching principals represented 46% of the total population of principals and teaching principals on the MDOE roster for the year.

The researchers compared the sample of responding principals with the state’s principal population and found that it approximately matches the statewide distribution of principals with respect to gender, length of tenure, education level and several attributes of the schools they served, including size, rurality, and percentage of students eligible for free/reduced lunch. Although there is reason to see the sample as representative of the whole population, readers need to be cautious about claims made on the basis of these findings. It is likely that principals who did not respond differed in experience, attitude, and demographic characteristics from those who did in some respects. We conjecture, for example, that principals who felt most burdened by their work in May 2005 and who were less interested in the goals of the survey were less likely to have responded.

The Maine Principal Study 2005

D. Buckingham, G. Donaldson, & G. Marnik

Executive Summary

Observations About Maine Principals: 1997 – 2005

v High turnover continues to characterize many principalships (1/3 of Maine principals stay in their jobs for under 2 years; over half for under five years).

v A large cadre of experienced principals will retire in the coming 5 years; more young educators are moving into the principalship as are more women.

v Principals devote on average 57-59 hours per week to their work.

v Principals are expected to supervise, on average, about 40 professional and support personnel.

v Their activity patterns continue to be characterized by many diverse tasks.

v Principals devote most time to Personnel Management, followed by Student Management and Interactions with the Education Hierarchy. They are increasingly engaged in Public Relations. Instructional Leadership and Professional Development occupy the bottom of the list.

v About 30% of Maine principals express dissatisfaction with their choice of careers consistently over the 8-year period.

v The vast majority find their work energizing, rewarding, and enjoyable. Most feel that they are making a difference in the education of children and that their schools are “making progress”.

v Many of these same principals also find the work stressful and characterized by conflict and criticism. They feel “overloaded” with work, find that it “intrudes” too much on personal/family time, and about half declare that “the job is wearing me out”.

v Most principals feel that most faculty and staff in their schools support them in achieving work goals. They gain assistance from other principals and, to a lesser degree, from their district office personnel. In general, they feel that parents and community have positive views of their schools.

v They also report that “changing priorities” and disagreement within the community make their work environment unpredictable and demanding.

v Principals’ feelings of stress and overload shift in relation to their sense of reward and energy for the job: as one rises, the other declines.

v Their sense of reward and energy shifts in relation to their perception that the community, district, and staff are in consensus about the positive direction of their school. As one rises or falls, so does the other.

v Their sense of effectiveness a principals also shifts in accordance with their perception of community, district, and staff consensus. As one rises or falls, so does the other.

v Finally, principals’ sense of reward and sense of personal efficacy shift in relation to the “unpredictability” of the environment around them and the amount of conflict and challenge they experience; as the latter rise, the former tend to fall (and vise versa).

Basic Descriptors: Maine Principals in 2005

Two trends continue from the past: increasing numbers of women and aging principals

The 2005 respondents include a slightly higher percentage of women (46.5%) than did the 2001 group (43.5 %) and a 5.5% increase over the 1997 respondents (41%). Correspondingly the number of male principals who responded to the survey has declined since 1997 from 59% to 53.5%.

The age distribution of the 2005 principal sample reflects a growing “barbell” shape. First, the percentage of principals 40 and under has increased slightly since 2001 from 9.3% to 11.0%. Second, while the percentage of responding principals between 41-50 has decreased significantly from 53.5% to 25.6%, the 51 and older age group has increased significantly from 37.3% to 59.2 %, (See Table 1). In short, a significant number of principals are closer to retirement than at any point since 1997 and it appears that young educators are beginning to move into principalships.

Most Maine principals are married or living with a significant other, even though these numbers decreased slightly since 4 years ago by 2.3%. They also share their homes with children, parents, others, or some combination of these. The percentage of principals carrying responsibilities for other people at home reflects the aging population of principals. Since 1997, fewer principals are caring for children at home (decrease of 4.3%) and others (decrease of 3%), while more are caring for parents (increase of 2.6%).

Since 2001 the numbers of responding principals who live in the district in which they work has decreased (44.1% vs. 38.4%).

Table 1. Description of Respondents
	1997		2001		2005
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Gender
Female	177	41	158	43.5	145	46.5
Male	255	59	205	56.5	167	53.5

Age
21-30	2	0.5	3	0.8	4	1.3
31-40	38	8.8	37	10.2	43	13.9
41-50	231	53.5	140	38.6	79	25.6
51 and over	161	37.3	183	50.4	183	59.2

Family condition
Married, significant other	NA	86	313	86.2	262	83.7
Single, involved	NA	5	22	6.1	20	6.4
Single, uninvolved	NA	9	24	6.6	31	9.9

Dependents living at home
1 or more children	NA	62	NA	55.4	NA	57.7
1 or more parents	NA	15	NA	14.3	NA	17.6
1 or more others	NA	14	NA	8.2	NA	11.0

Residence
In district	NA	NA	160	44.1	121	38.4
Out of district	NA	NA	203	55.9	194	61.6

Experienced, but Continuing High Rates of Turnover Despite Some Improving Trends

The average Maine principal responding to the survey has 12.3 years of experience in administration and 13.2 years experience in teaching. This typical principal has worked at her/his present school for 9.4 years; of those, 6.8 years have been in her/his current position as a principal or teaching principal. While roughly the same as in 1997 and 2005, the average length of tenure in current position has dropped from 8.1 years 1997 to 6.9 years in 2005.

Forty-two percent of the 2005 principals were in their first and only principalship; another 30% were in their second principalship. The remaining 28% had held three or more different principal positions. These data are roughly the same as the 1997 figures. The typical principal is thus fully vested in the Maine State Retirement System. Given that Maine principals are an aging population, the state is likely to see even greater turnover in the next 4 to 8 years.

To get a better grasp of longevity/turnover patterns, Table 2 contrasts principals by different lengths of tenure in administration and in their current positions. What is striking

Table 2. Length of Tenure (Percentages)
	1997	2001		2005
Number of Years	in Current Position	in Admin.	in Current Position			in Admin.	in Current Position

1 or fewer	17.4	2.8	16.0			5.0	17.2
2 or fewer	34.3	10.7	30.9			7.6	30.3
5 or fewer	60.4	27.5	56.5			24.8	55.4
7 or fewer	70.5	34.7	66.7			36.4	68.5
10 or fewer	79.8	44.6	77.7			50.3	77.7
More than 10	20.2	55.4	22.3		11-20	34.1	17.5
More than 15	9.5	37.5	11.3		21-30	12.0	3.5
					31-40	3.3	1.3
					41-50	0.3
Mean # Yrs:	8.1	12.3	6.8			12.2	6.9

about these data is the continuing pattern from 1997 to 2001 to 2005 of low tenure in Maine principalships. In 1997, 60% of principals had been in their current positions for 5 years or less, with 34% for 2 years or less. By 2001, this pattern had improved slightly but not appreciably to 56% and 31%. In 2005, this pattern continued to improve slightly to 55% and 30%. In other words, the turnover rate in Maine principalships has slowed somewhat (decrease of 5% in the number of respondents in their current positions for 5 years or less) over the past eight years.

The basic eight-year pattern, however, depicts substantial instability of leadership for Maine schools. Roughly one third of positions turning over every two years. Another one third of principalships appear to hold their principals more than two years but fewer than seven years. And the remaining one third of principalships hold their incumbent principals for more than seven years, with approximately 22% of principals in 2001 and 2005 having more than 10 years of experience.

These data have obvious implications for school leadership and sustaining programs of school improvement. Given the continuing disparity through three cycles of the survey between experience in administration (average of 12.2 years) and tenure in the current position (6.9 years) and these turnover rates, it appears that wisdom and experience are being lost from leadership positions just when they might be most needed.

Predominantly Rural—and with Wide Supervisory Responsibilities

As in 2001, 66% of principals characterized their districts as rural, and the remaining 34% reported their districts as suburban or urban. Interestingly, these proportions held roughly constant when principals reported the type of district in which they have spent the majority of their careers. By contrast, 51% of the sample reported having grown up in rural communities (17% are from urban and 32% from suburban communities). These data suggest that the Maine principalship attracts educators who have chosen to work in smaller and more community-based schools than they may have attended as students.

Not surprisingly, school sizes mirror the largely rural nature of principals’ workplaces. Table 3 reports the variation in school enrollment across the population of principals, emphasizing the diversity of types and sizes of schools served by Maine principals.

Table 3. Supervisory Responsibilities
	1997	2001	2005

Mean enrollment	355	371	338

% of principals in schools
Under 200	26.3	27	28.3
Under 300	45.8	50	55.3
Under 450	72.8	74	77.8
Under 650	88.7	87	89.4
% of principals in schools with
< 25% FRL eligible	28.5	29	22.4
< 50% FRL eligible	69.6	77	70

% of principals in schools
Serving grades 9-12	24.1	24	22.7
Serving only grades 9-12	18.6	18	18

Supervisory load (mean)
Professional staff	18	33	31
Support staff	11	17	16

% of principals supervising
< 24 staff	22.7	21	17.2
< 44 staff	63.6	50	60.8
> 44 staff	36.4	50	39.2
Note. FRL = free or reduced lunch.

While the average Maine principal responding to our survey was serving a slightly larger school in 2001 than in 1997, that average principal in 2005 was serving a school with a lower enrollment than the 1997 principal. Between 1997 and 2005, the proportion of responding principals working in schools of under 300 students rose from 46% to 55%. The number of principals serving schools where more than 50% of students are eligible for free-or-reduced lunch also increased slightly from 2001 to 2005.

Interestingly, the number of staff the average Maine principal supervises –which rose 37% between 1997 and 2001 – has stayed at 2001 levels despite the decline in enrollments. As we have noted in each report since 1997, the supervisory responsibilities of the typical Maine principal continue to far surpass those typically expected of a supervisor in the private sector (where 15-20 supervisees is considered optimum). With the growing pressure for accountability and reform, this situation cannot be viewed as constructive either for schools or for principals.

Diverse Administrative Structures

We see a slight increase between 1997 and 2005 in the percentage of responding principals who work in school administrative districts (SADs), from 43% in 1997 to 49% in 2005. The proportions of principals employed in municipality districts (30%) held steady, as did the proportions employed in school unions (18%), community school districts (3.2%) and independent or private schools (1.4%). That is, about half of the sample is employed by larger geographic and organizational units (SADs and CSDs) while most of the remaining half serve schools in single towns where they answer to a local board elected by that town (municipalities and SUs). These differing organizational arrangements constitute quite divergent working conditions for principals.

Principals are Largely Maine-educated ;with Growing graduate Credentials

The vast majority of principals (97.5%) hold graduate degrees with 72.4% at the Masters and Masters plus credit level. Twenty-two percent hold degrees at the CAS level, (almost a 5% increase over 2001). Finally, 3.5% of principals responding to the survey hold Doctorate degrees, a decrease of 1.5% from the previous survey.

Approximately 89% of principals earned their graduate degrees from Maine colleges and universities. Since the 2001 survey those with degrees from University of Southern Maine programs remained constant (37%/36.5%). Principals with degrees from the University of Maine increased by 4% from 46% to 50.2%. University of New England graduates decreased from 3.6% to .6%. Those attending out-of-state colleges and universities also decreased falling from 13% to 11.6%. For all universities, 73% of the respondents to the survey felt that their education was either relevant of very relevant; 23% felt that it was somewhat irrelevant and 4% felt it was largely irrelevant.

Professional Development Continues Beyond the University Classroom

During the 2004-05 school year, nearly 42% of principals reported being engaged in professional development activities directly related to their role and responsibilities for more than 7 days. Despite this investment of time, when one examines the major clusters of principal activites (see Table 6 and Appendix C), involvement in professional development remains quite low (sixth lowest out of the seven clusters). These principals felt their professional development had only a moderate impact on school success (fifth lowest out of seven clusters).

When we examined principal involvement in various types of professional development activities, we made the following observations:

Even though principals felt they were “often” involved in professional reading (mean=2.88) they felt this activity had only “moderate” impact (mean=2.91). Of the three activities included in this cluster, professional reading had the highest ranking in terms of involvement yet the lowest in terms of impact.
Principals rated their involvement in in-service programs for instructional personnel as “moderate” but saw this activity as the most impactful (mean=3.03) for the second consecutive survey.
Meetings and courses for professional growth remained relatively unchanged over the eight-year period, continuing to rank slightly less than “often” in terms of the involvement and still hovering around “moderate” in terms of impact.

Finally, principals were asked to assess the degree to which a variety of activities and

experiences contributed to their success as a principal. Their “experience as a teacher”, “attending professional development conferences and seminars” and “graduate training in educational leadership” rated the highest (mean scores as indicating that these contribute “substantially” or “a great deal” to their success). On the other hand, “internships”, “mentoring” and “participation in sustained programs” rated the lowest mean scores, contributing “very little” or “some” to their success.

Perceived Sources of Help

Principals were asked to rate the helpfulness of a range of people, groups, and organizations that are typically influential in principals’ work. The survey gave principals an opportunity to indicate if a person or group “helped” them to succeed in their work or “made my work more difficult”. The results in 2005 reveal that many of these Maine principals continue to feel that they are surrounded by people who are helpful.

Consistently since 1997, Maine principals rated the same two sources clearly as most helpful to their success: their secretaries and their spouses/significant others, in that order. In all three surveys, these more personal sources of assistance were followed by three professional groups who were rated almost even: teachers, other principals outside the school, and in the case of 2005 principals, the district administrative team. While secretaries and significant others were rated as “sustaining help”, these three types of collegial support were “often helpful when I needed it”.

Principals in all three years rated counselors, other principals in their schools, the superintendent/central office, and maintenance staff as helpful as well, but slightly less so on average than teachers and principals outside their buildings. Next in helpfulness was the Maine Principals Association with an average rating at the midpoint of the response scale between helpful and not helpful. Following the MPA were parents and universities/professors, with the notable exception of 2005 when parents were viewed as considerably less helpful than they had been in 2001 or 1997. Least helpful to principals in all three years were the local school board and, in 2005, the Maine Department of Education.

In summary, Maine principals over the past eight years have viewed many of those who surround them in their work as helpful to them. While some people or organizations – notably school boards, MDOE, universities and parents – are seen as “of negligible influence” or as unhelpful by a substantial number of principals, none of these are viewed as being “a regular obstacle to me” by a lot of principals.

Table 4. Perceptions of Sources of Help (Means)
		1997	2001	2005
Source
Secretaries	1.40		1.47	1.56
Spouse, significant other	1.65		1.64	1.71
Principal(s) outside my school	2.16		2.09	2.00
District Administrative Team	N/A		N/A	2.00
Teachers in my school	2.09		2.01	2.08
Principal(s) in my school/district (2005)	2.10		2.49	2.16
Superintendent, central office	2.26		2.18	2.20
Guidance counselors	2.15		2.15	2.26
Maintenance staff	2.21		2.20	2.27
Maine Principals’ Association	2.43		2.41	2.42
Universities, professors	2.57		2.58	2.57
Parents of children in my school	2.62		2.49	2.71
Local school board	2.77		2.72	2.74
Maine Dept. of Education	N/A		N/A	3.08

Note. 1997 used a 4-point scale: 1 = provided sustained help to me; 2 = often been helpful when I needed it; 3 = negligible influence on my work; 4 = made my work more difficult. In contrast, 2001 and 2005 used a five point scale: 1 = provided sustained help to me; 2 = often been helpful when I needed it; 3 = negligible influence on my work; 4 = sometimes makes my work more difficult; 5 = has been a regular obstacle for me.

Professional Work Patterns

Time: Longer Hours at School

In 1997, the average Maine principal reported spending 56 hours per week at work and 24 hours with family. In 2001, the average work hours had risen slightly to 58, and hours with family had increased to 28. This pattern held in 2005 with principals devoting an average of 57 hours to work and 28 hours to family per week.

In each of the three survey years, over 96% of responding principals reported spending more than 40 hours per week at work and over 73% reported spending more than 50 hours per week. In 2005, however, considerably fewer principals were reporting spending more than 60 hours at work than had in 2001 (22% compared to 38%). While this suggests that some principals are succeeding at balancing work with home responsibilities, the dominant pattern of work involvement for the average Maine principal remains markedly greater than the prototypical 40-hour workweek.

Given this huge investment of time at work and with family, it is not surprising the Maine principals report consistently low involvement in volunteer, exercise, and leisure activities since 1997. One encouraging statistic: 37% of responding principals report devoting more than 3 hours each week to exercise/caring for health in comparison to 34% in 2001 (which had dropped from 45% in 1997, however). See Appendix A.

Questions of Personal-Professional Balance Persist

The principals responding to the 2005 survey continue to express the sentiment that their jobs “intrude too much on my personal life” and that “I have little time for myself” because of the long hours on the job. Table 5 reveals the persistence of this “balance” challenge: 50% of these principals strongly disagreed with the statement, “I find it easy to balance job and family”; 15% more “disagreed” that it was easy to strike this balance.

To what degree do the long hours and their attendant intrusion on “personal time” erode principals’ effectiveness? Although we only have principals’ opinions on this matter, it appears that many principals feel they cannot be at their best at all times because of the workload and

long hours. In 2005, 62% believed that “my workload makes it difficult to give my best attention to tasks” and roughly half of responding principals in 2001 and in 2005 reported that they “often wonder if the long hours at work are worth it”.

The persistence of these effects of the principal’s job on the people who hold those jobs raises disturbing questions about school leadership in Maine. Why, for instance, would an accomplished teacher who, like many teachers, feels deeply rewarded by her work with students want such a job? Why, as well, would a young father or mother sacrifice time with her or his own children and spouse for a job that intrudes so?

Table 5.

Opinions on Balancing Work and Personal Lives

(% responding agree & Strongly Agree; mean scores where Strongly Agree = 4, Strongly Disagree = 1)

1997 2001 2005

My job intrudes too much

on my personal life

% A/%SA

Mean

64%

2.80

56%

2.66

Because of long hours, I have

little time left for myself

% A/%SA

Mean

74%

3.18

72%

3.06

69%

2.90

I find it easy to balance job

and family

%D/%SD

Mean

68%

2.10

67%

2.13

65%

2.25

My workload makes it

difficult to give my best

attention to tasks

%A/%SA

Mean

62%

2.75

I often wonder if the long

hours are worth it

%A/%SA

Mean

42%

2.38

48%

2.52

46%

2.49

Commitment to the Principal Profession

These data describing the time commitments of principals’ work and their impacts on principals raise the question: Once a person has chosen to be a principal, how does the experience itself shape her/his commitment to the role? We asked: If you had to do it over again, would you still choose to become a principal? Would you still choose a career in public education? Researchers have used items of this sort to gauge satisfaction and sense of efficacy individuals feel in their work.

About 70% of Maine principals in 2001 answered “yes, definitely” or “yes, probably” to these questions. About 74% of the 2005 respondents replied in the affirmative. While these data indicate that many Maine principals seem satisfied with their worklives, they also raise concerns about those who do not. Fourteen percent of 2005 principals were “unsure” if they would still choose to become a principal and 12% said they “definitely” or “probably” would not (a slight improvement from 15% in 2001).

It seems quite remarkable that so many Maine principals are so committed to their work, given how demanding it is personally and professionally. Even more remarkable is that the percentage (at least in this study) of satisfied leaders has increased in the past four years. We are left, however, with concern about the schools led by those principals – one quarter of all those responding – who do not feel positively about the career they are in.

Among principals who either would not “do it over again” or were unsure, 69 responded with comments. Predominant among common themes in these comments was that the long hours and workload were too great to support a healthy balance of personal and professional lives. 38% of the principals responded with comments such as “The workload is overwhelming. The students’ needs are more urgent and critical.” “I do not have balance in my life, I waited until my children were out of school to enter public education, but now in hindsight, I would have stayed with teaching”. “The time and commitment and stress are beginning to affect my health.” “[The job] used to be fun-now it’s a chore.” These principals appear worn down by their time on the job and the inability to balance the time required by their jobs with the time needed for their

families or themselves.

Qualitative aspects of their worklives trouble these principals, too. Twenty-six percent responded with comments indicating that stress and unrealistic expectations and demands are counter productive for them. For example, one principal wrote that “the hours of work and the level of responsibility, stress and supervision is not commensurate with other professional upper management. Principals who say they would not “re-up” object to both the amount of the work they do and the frenetic, fragmented, and high stakes nature of the work. One principal summed it up plainly: “Stress level and expectations are so high, it takes a toll. Budget restraints and community expectations are often unreasonable.” Contributing to the stress and demands for some are the intrusion of federal and state mandates, especially of No Child Left Behind, Annual Yearly Progress, Maine Learning Results, and others. 23% of these principals mentioned a wide range of mandates that interfere with their work. “NCLB, GLE, MAT, MEA, LAS, Need I say more?” “Federal interventions

have been based on a model intended to denigrate our work, rather than support it.”

A second theme arises from principals’ comments about the lack of rewards associated with the job. Twenty-nine percent of these principals responded with comments indicating that “the hours of work and the level of responsibility, stress and supervision are not commensurate with other professional upper management... and pay is considerably less”. Although many principals say their job is rewarding, for these principals the compensation does not match the effort required. The sense that the work of these principals is not appreciated or respected is also evident: 14% of these principals say that there is a lack of appreciation and/or respect for their position. Among these principals there is a sense that “positive accomplishments for the school community go unrecognized and unrewarded.”

Limited resources, a lack of parental and family support, overriding negativity, job isolation, and politics all were raised as disincentives to the job, though by fewer numbers of principals than those mentioned above. Interestingly, though, there were 7 comments from principals who would have selected other lines of work if they had had the opportunity. This group may represent a population of Maine principals whose opportunities were limited when they began their careers. They do not seem to regret their choices and may enjoy the job, but would have gone into another occupation if one had been available.

Activities: What Principals Do and How They Rate Their Impacts

The MPS questionnaire listed 38 activities commonly associated with principals’ work. These fell into activity clusters established by the researchers, such as “instructional leadership,” “interactions with educational hierarchy,” and “professional development.” Maine principals were asked to rate each of these activities in two respects: frequency of engagement (from 1 = rarely to 4 = very often); and level of perceived direct positive impact on the school’s success (from 1 = none to 4 = a great deal). These two measures permit not only a profile of activity patterns and perceived impact, but they also allow us to examine the relationship between principals’ allocation of time and their perception of the productivity of those allocations. We present a summary of the responses of the principals using the a priori activity clusters. Our statistical analysis indicates that they moderately cohere as composite variables.

Activity and Productivity

Overall, principals in 2005 reported being engaged frequently in most of the 38 activity clusters, as they were in both previous surveys (see Appendix B for item means). They were engaged in 16 of the activities “often” or more than “often” and in another 11 slightly less than “often” (mean scores of 2.7 or above). They were most involved in “responding to the needs of teachers”, “running faculty meetings” and the “supervision and evaluation of teachers”. All three of these activities fall in the “personnel management” cluster. The only activity in 2005 they were “occasionally” engaged in (M @ 2.0) was “social activities with staff”; three activities, however, were rated “occasionally” in 2001.

In terms of the perceived impact of their activities on school success, principals in 2005 reported that the following activities had the least impact on the school’s success: “dealing with state and community agencies”, “social activities with staff” and “organizing and supervising co-curricular activities”. The activities they felt had the most impact were: the “recruitment of instructional personnel”, “ resolving student behavior problems” and “responding to the needs of teachers”.

Table 6. Patterns of Activity and Perceptions of Impact/Success (Means Scores)
	1997		2001		2005
Activity cluster	Involve-ment	Suc-cess*	Involve-ment	Impact*		Involve-ment	Impact*

Student management	3.13	3.34	3.02	3.20		2.95	3.13
Personnel management	3.07	3.19	3.16	3.23		3.11	3.17
Interactions with education hierarchy	3.02	3.12	2.99	2.76		2.96	2.61
Resource management	2.95	3.15	2.73	2.81		2.84	2.81
Public relations	2.89	3.15	3.06	3.13		2.96	3.05
Instructional leadership	2.87	2.98	2.76	2.97		2.72	2.89
Professional development	2.85	3.02	2.83	2.99		2.88	2.99
Involvement Scale: 1 = rarely; 2 = occasionally; 3 = often; 4 = very often. Success/Impact Scale: 1 = none; 2 = very little; 3 = moderate; 4 = a great deal. Note. Use caution when comparing 2001 and 2005 “Impact” ratings with 1997 “success” ratings. The former indicate perceived impacts of activity on the school’s success, whereas the latter indicate how successfully 1997 principals felt they performed each activity.*

When we examined these activity clusters further, some patterns appeared across the three survey years (See Appendix C). Personnel management has consistently remained one of the highest (first or second) priorities for principals’ involvement over the three surveys.

On the other hand, student management has steadily fallen as a time commitment from the highest ranking to the mid-range. Public relations has taken on more time, rising from the third lowest to the second highest for the two most recent surveys. Finally, despite some minor fluctuation, professional development and instructional leadership remain in the lowest tier (bottom three) of involvement by principals. However, the reader needs to take into account that the difference in means is smaller than the relative rankings might indicate.

In the principals’ opinions, which of these activity clusters led to their greatest direct positive impact on the school’s success? Their attention to personnel management -- the cluster in which they are most engaged -- is seen as having the most impact in 2001 and 2005. In other words, this cluster seems to be yielding positive results for principals for the amount of time they devote to it. However, while involvement in student management has steadily decreased (first to fourth) the impact principals believe they have in this cluster has remained high (first or second).

The impact of their public relations efforts has increased slightly from fourth to third in the last two survey years and that shadows the increased involvement that principals reported.

The cluster “interactions with educational hierarchy” has fallen to the lowest impact ranking even though the involvement level has remained relatively constant and high (third or fourth highest). Thus, for the amount of time expended by principals in this cluster, there seems to be disproportionately less perceived impact on school success. Finally, despite the low involvement rankings, principals believe their engagement in professional development and instructional leadership activities is having a proportionally higher impact on school success than is “interactions with the educational hierarchy” or “resource management.”

How Do Maine Principals Experience Their Work?

The final section of the survey asked Maine principals to evaluate various aspects of their worklives, such as enjoyment of work, faculty agreement about school goals, community support for their schools, and so on. Respondents indicated strong agreement, agreement, disagreement or strong disagreement with 36 statements about principal work and work conditions. Our hope was that we could learn about those aspects of the job that were rewarding and those that were persisting challenges.

For discussion purposes, we organized the 36 into five clusters based on the following themes: Rewards of the Work; Professional and Personal Efficacy; School Context Enhancers; School Context Detractors; and Demands of the Work. We then examined Maine principals’ responses in each of these clusters to obtain a snapshot of how they, as a group, were experiencing these aspects of their work as school leaders.

Table 7. Maine Principals’ Worklife Assessment: 1997, 2001, 2005

Clusters Based on Face Validity

(mean score scale: Strongly Agree = 4 to Strongly Disagree = 1

	2005
		1997 Mean Scores	2001 Mean Scores	Mean Scores	%”Strongly Agree & Agree
CLUSTER I Rewards of the Work
I enjoy being a principal.		3.53	3.48	3.44	96%
My work is energizing and rewarding.		3.16	3.16	3.18	90%
I would like to be a principal at this school for many years.		2.93	2.99	2.97	75%
I have as much enthusiasm as I did when I first became a principal.		2.94	2.92	2.85	68%
If I could get a higher paying job, I would leave the principalship in a minute.		1.87	2.05	2.07	22%
I often consider becoming a teacher again.		2.12	2.08	2.02	25%
CLUSTER II Professional and Personal Efficacy
I am making a positive difference for students at this school.		3.42	3.49	3.37	98%
I am confident in my ability to be an effective school leader.		3.36	3.37	3.30	96%
I feel as though I am making progress at my school.		NA	3.24	3.26	97%
When all factors are considered, principals are a powerful influence on student achievement.		3.25	3.29	3.23	90%
I have enough training and experience to deal with almost any learning problem.		2.96	3.06	2.99	78%
I often wonder if the long hours involved in the job are worth it.		2.38	2.52	2.49	47%
The hours student spend in school have little influence compared to their home environments.		NA	2.05	2.11	26%

Continued

	2005
	1997 Mean Scores	2001 Mean Scores	Mean Scores	%”Strongly Agree & Agree
CLUSTER III School Context Enhancers
The community takes a lot of pride in our school.	3.17	3.34	3.31	90%
Parents are supportive of our school.	3.20	3.32	3.29	97%
Most teachers at this school have values and philosophies of education similar to my own.	3.03	2.97	3.07	89%
There is a shared vision for this school.	3.02	3.03	3.04	85%
We have widespread agreement here regarding the goals for students.	3.00	3.03	3.02	82%
Teachers at this school have high standards for all students	3.06	2.99	3.00	81%
The central office assists me in improving my school.	NA	NA	2.88	76%
CLUSTER IV School Context Detractors
My workload makes it difficult to give my best attention to tasks.	NA	NA	2.75	62%
I feel pressure from others to make sure this school has a reputation for excellence.	3.37	2.72	NA	NA
I am expected to keep pressure on faculty and staff to improve.	NA	NA	2.79	70%
Priorities change too frequently for our school and staff to improve.	2.37	2.48	2.55	48%
Some community groups/individuals [fervently/2001] oppose educational practices here at school.	NA	2.20	2.54	59%
I spend a lot of time responding to conflicting expectations of our school.	NA	2.40	NA	NA
My workload makes it difficult to give my best attention to tasks.	NA	NA	2.25	32%
Rules and policies hinder me in doing my job.	1.83	2.14	2.20	27%
I encounter little disagreement and conflict in my work.	NA	NA	2.16	30%
CLUSTER V Demands of the Work
I find my job stressful.	NA	3.20	3.12	85%
I often find myself in situations that are challenging for me.	NA	3.11	2.92	77%
Because of long hours required by my job, I have little time left for myself.	3.18	3.06	2.90	69%
I think the stress and challenges of being a principal are well worth it.	2.96	2.76	2.80	67%
My job intrudes too much on my personal life.	NA	2.85	2.66	56%
The demands of this job are wearing me out.	NA	NA	2.58	51%
I find it easy to balance my commitments to job and family.	2.10	2.13	2.25	35%

Principals’ responses to the Rewards of the Work cluster clearly indicate that the vast majority of responding 2005 principals found their work rewarding. Ninety-six percent of them agreed or strongly agreed that they “enjoy being a principal”; 90% find their work “energizing and rewarding”; and 75% reported that they would “like to be a principal at this school for many years”. Sixty-eight percent reported that they had “as much enthusiasm” as they did when they became principals (which, as we saw in Table 2 was, on average, 12 years ago).

Despite these generally glowing reports of the work’s rewards from most principals, a minority of about 25% of responding principals were not so positive. Indeed, 22% said they would “leave the principalship in a minute” if they could get a higher paying job and 25% indicated that they “often consider becoming a teacher again”. These patterns in the rewards of the work cluster are substantially consistent from 1997-2005.

Turning to Professional and Personal Efficacy, we see that this group of Maine principals has a strong sense of their effectiveness. Ninety-eight percent feel they are “making a positive difference for students” and 97% feel that they are “making progress at my school”. These feelings seem founded on a belief that their positions give them the chance to be “powerful influences on student achievement” (90% agreement) and that schools can counteract home environments that might undercut educational attainment (74%). More personally, 96% of these principals expressed “confidence” that their abilities will help them exert a positive influence as leaders. They are positive, as well, that they have “enough training and experience to deal with almost any learning problem.”

By contrast, 22% felt that they did not have enough training and experience and 26% expressed doubts that schools could overcome the effects of the home. Despite this strong sense of confidence and efficacy, 47% of respondents reported that they “often wonder if the long hours involved in the job are worth it”. The patterns in this cluster re also consistent from 1997-2005.

Cluster III, School Context Enhancers, asked about aspects of the school and job that principals might view as sources of assistance and support. Overall, responding principals reported positively about a number of conditions surrounding them in their work. In particular, they viewed parents and teachers as supportive: 97% agreed that “parents are supportive of the school”; 89% reported that teachers share their “values and educational philosophy”; and similar percentages felt that a shared vision and widespread agreement on goals existed in their schools (even though only 61% reported that student learning goals were “written”). The vast majority (90%) of these principals believed that “the community takes a lot of pride in the school,” a clear indication of support for the general performance of their school by local standards. These patterns are consistent from 1997 to 2005.

These principals, as a group, were less certain about the central office’s role in enhancing the work of their school: 76% agreed that “central office assists me in improving my school”, a quarter of the principals reporting no assistance from their learning district office. About 20% of principals noted that disagreement over vision and goals exists and that teachers in their school do not have high standards for all students. These are troubling results if they are representative of all Maine’s principals.

The two remaining clusters examined aspects of the school or job context that might be viewed as detrimental in some way. The first of these, School Context Detractors, revealed some elements of the job that many principals felt weigh them down. Sixty-two percent agreed that their workload makes it difficult for them “to give my best attention to tasks” and 48% felt that “priorities change too frequently for our school to succeed at them all.” These findings put the earlier observations about efficacy/effectiveness in perspective, suggesting that principals might feel effective in general, yet know that they are not effective – or cannot be effective – in every regard or all the time. The sheer volume and variety of the workload apparently erodes their sense of effectiveness.

Seventy percent of these principals also report that they encounter conflict and disagreement “in my work”. They experience it in opposition to educational practices from the community (59%) and in having their “professional judgment...often questioned by others” (32%). Forty-eight percent agreed that “priorities change too frequently for our school and staff to improve” (agreement to this item rose steadily from 1997-2005). Seventy percent of these principals reported that they are “expected to keep pressure on faculty and staff to improve”, perhaps explaining the source of some of the conflict they feel. Interestingly, they don’t tend to see “rules and policies” hindering them in their work.

The final cluster, Demands of the Work, samples principals’ opinions of the personal impacts of their work on themselves (some of these have been noted already in other sections of this report). Eighty-five percent reported that their job is “stressful” and 77% said that they “often find myself in situations that are challenging for me”. These results, in combination with those in the School Context Detractors cluster, seem to indicate that conflict, disagreement, the pressure to improve, and the trouble-shooting/problem-resolving features of principals’ work create their own burden of stress. Indeed, 51% of this group reported that “the demands of this job are wearing me out.”

Some insight into what makes this work so wearing comes from two other items. 69% said that the “long hours required by my job” leave them “little time for myself”, a result reinforced by the number of hours they report devoting to the job (57 per week, on average). A similar number reported that they do not find it easy to balance their commitments to job and family. 56% felt that their jobs “intrude too much on my personal life”.

As Table 7 demonstrates, this profile of Maine principals’ worklives matches closely the profiles generated from the 1997 and 2001 surveys. Few of the mean scores for these worklife items vary greatly over the eight-year span (the greatest variations: more principals saying they would leave for a higher paying job, but fewer finding their jobs challenging and intrusive on their personal lives). We have come to realize that many of these principals experience stress in their jobs but that they garner from it great enjoyment and professional satisfaction. In 2005, 68% of respondents reported that “the stress and challenges of being a principal are well worth it”, a percentage similar to those in 2001 and 1997.

Some Keys to Understanding Principals’ Worklives

The statistical procedure known as factor analysis allowed us to examine differently the 36 statements about worklife discussed in the previous section. Factor analysis reveals groups of items that principals tended to respond to in consistent ways. Each of these groups of items can be said to represent a “factor” in the worklife of Maine principals. Unlike the clusters reported in the prior section, which were assembled by the research team because we believed they represented themes, these factors reflect patterns in the principals’ survey responses themselves. Thus, factor analysis allowed us to check if the clusters of items we used were meaningful aspects of principals’ experience. Were the items in each cluster associated with one another in principals’ patterns of response? If they were, do they reveal an important construct for understanding principals’ experience.

Our six-factor analysis of principals’ responses showed that, by and large, the clusters we had identified prior to the study actually are associated in the thinking and the experience of Maine principals. Some items in our prior clusters, however, “moved”, showing up in new clusters in the response patterns (see Appendix D.). We ran further analyses using these statistically-supported “factors”. In short, this allowed us: a) to compare the strength of the factors to one another; b) to compare principals’ views about each factor and its role in their worklives; and c) to correlate these factors with other aspects of the survey to see, for example, if men and women differed or if high school and elementary school principals differed.

The factors are, in descending order of their reliability as statistically-supported constructs:

Factor 1 The Workload is Heavy and Stressful (Seven items; Cronbach’s Alpha = .89)

Ÿ Items relating to stress, to impacts of the workload on principals’ effectiveness and ability to balance job and personal life, to feeling “worn out”, and to their assessment of whether the time they devote is “worth it”. Very similar to Demands of the Work (five items in common with Cluster V).

Ÿ 2005 principals, on average, indicated moderate agreement that this factor is a part of their worklives (mean score: 2.74 on a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree).

Factor 2 The Role is Rewarding (Six items; Cronbach’s Alpha = .84)

Ÿ Items relating to the work being “enjoyable”, “energizing and rewarding”, and willingness to stay with current job. Very similar to Rewards of the Work ( 5 items in common with Cluster I).

Ÿ 2005 principals indicated solid agreement that this is a quality of their worklives (mean score: 3.03)

Factor 3 Consensus on Our School’s Progress (Eight items; Cronbach’s Alpha = .80)

Ÿ Items relating to community pride, shared goals and vision, parent support, and the principal’s feeling of making a positive difference. Shares six items from School Context Enhancers (Cluster III) and two items from Professional and Personal Efficacy (II). This suggests that principals’ feelings of efficacy are intertwined with their perceptions that teachers, parents, and community are on the same page with one another – and with the principal.

Ÿ 2005 principals expressed solid agreement that this is a quality of their worklives (mean score: 3.17, the highest score among the six factors).

Factor 4 Personal Efficacy in the Role (Four items; Cronbach’s Alpha = .56)

Ÿ Items relating to the principal’s general sense of confidence and influence as well as belief in the soundness of their “training/experience”. Shares three items with Professional and Personal Efficacy (Cluster II). These three items capture the principal’s sense of personal efficacy, while items in Factor 3 pertaining to efficacy are more related to their impacts on the school’s progress and effectiveness – ie. their professional efficacy.

Ÿ 2005 principals , indicated widespread agreement that they feel personally efficacious (mean score: 3.06).

Factor 5 Unpredictable and Demanding Environment (Five items; Cronbach’s Alpha = .56)

Ÿ Items relating to changing priorities and demands, to expectations for principals to “pressure” others to improve, to the degree of assistance provided by the central office, and to their belief in the school’s influence on students in comparison to the home’s. Three of these items appear in Cluster IV, School Context Detractors.

Ÿ 2005 principals indicated moderate agreement that they are surrounded by an unpredictable and demanding environment (mean score: 2.54).

Factor 6 Interpersonal Conflict & Personal Challenge (Five items; Cronbach’s Alpha = .54)

Ÿ Items relating to the presence of conflict and opposition in the job and to the degree to which principals feel “challenged” and pressured in their work. This factor clearly connects their feeling challenged with conflict, opposition, disagreement, and “being questioned”. Four of these items also appear in the School Context Detractors cluster (IV).

Ÿ 2005 principals expressed moderate agreement that this is an aspect of their work (mean score: 2.64).

There are moderate, statistically significant correlations among the six factors identified by the factor analysis. (All correlations are significant at the .01 level; see Appendix D.) The strongest of these correlations highlight the associations of Workload (The Workload is Heavy and Stressful) with Reward (The Role is Rewarding) and Consensus (Consensus on Progress) with Personal Efficacy.

Workload and reward are inversely related in Maine principals’ worklives: the more they experience overload and stress, the less rewarding is their work. Increased workload, the hours, demands, and stresses of the job, is associated with weaker feelings of enjoyment, enthusiasm, energy, and rewards in the principalship. Principals who report greater agreement with items such as “I find my job stressful” also say that their “jobs intrude on their personal lives” and that they find it difficult to balance work and family. Because of the long hours the principalship demands they have little time for themselves and find family time difficult to maintain. The more principals’ worklives overlap their “outside of school lives”, the less rewarding the job seems and the more these principals wonder if their work is “worth it.”

On the other hand, our correlation analysis shows that principals’ sense of reward is positively associated with school and community consensus. Enjoyment of the principalship, the sense that the job is energizing and rewarding and that the stress and challenge are worth it, (The Role is Rewarding factor) increase among principals in schools where they report a sense of greater congruence among staff and community (Consensus on Progress). When principals perceive a sense of community pride in their schools and they agree on goals and a vision for the school with faculty and staff, they also report that they are making a positive difference for the schools and that they are making progress. The more principals perceive congruence with the others they work with, the more rewarding that work is.

Principals also tend to associate higher Consensus with greater confidence in their own skills, training, and experience and are more likely to consider principals to be a powerful influence on students (Personal Efficacy). Principals who report they are in greater agreement with their communities and faculties also feel that they are making a positive difference in their schools.

The opposite is true for principals who experience shifting priorities, greater constraint by rules, and expectations to keep pressure on staff (Conflicting Demands and Priorities). These principals report greater workload, fewer rewards, and a decreased sense of agreement or consensus with their schools and communities.

Correlations among these factors illustrate that the relationships among workload and reward are not exclusive of other factors. The perception that schools and communities are working together to make progress is associated with progress and a lower sense of workload. Conversely, when principals report greater conflict, they also report that the workload is greater and the rewards are fewer.

Concluding Observations

We close this third report of the Maine Principals Study with several observations and with a greater degree of certainty about them than we felt in 1997 or 2001. With data from three points over time, spanning eight years, we can now see where patterns have persisted or varied. Thus, we have gained a greater sense of the evolutionary arc of this very important role in Maine schools, the principalship, and how it is experienced by the educators who seek to fill it successfully. We remain cognizant of the fact that our research has included about half the principals and teaching principals in Maine and that our observations can not be generalized to every principal or to the entire population. We offer five overarching thoughts in conclusion to this third iteration of the study.

The Maine principalship, in general, is a transient position and it is becoming more so. In our sample, most principals had held their jobs less than five years and the average number of years in current position was under 7 (down from over 8years in 1997). Clearly, if communities are to have the kinds of stable leadership necessary for schools to improve, this pattern is not a healthy one. Some of the rise in turnover can be attributed to the aging of the principal force in Maine. But some of it plainly rests on the challenging nature of the work itself.

Which isn’t to say that the work is not rewarding. Maine principals, on the whole, draw satisfaction and reward from their work. In that work, they encounter a great variety of activities, but it revolves heavily around working with people – staff and students primarily. The enjoyment they derive no doubt stems from this responsive, facilitative function. The satisfaction – 70% would do this same work again if they had the choice – is likely tied to their sense that their work is important, that it does have a powerful influence on the quality of education their students receive.

These Maine principals, taken as a whole, believe they are making a difference. But this sense of efficacy is input, the result of feeling support and agreement from teachers, parents, and community. They do not succeed alone; they succeed because there are many people around them who share their goals, who believe in what the school is doing, and who provide assistance to them (most importantly, office staff, significant others, teachers, and other principals). Their sense of fulfillment in their work, our factor analysis showed, is linked with this sense that the collective effort is making their schools succeed.

But these Maine principals also find their work taxing. The job offers an unusual blend of rewards AND costs for those who hold it. It is stressful. It makes principals feel challenged. Disagreement, conflict, and pressure accompany it. The demands are more varied and greater than most individual principals can successfully address, particularly alone. In a word, it is stimulating and rewarding work, but it is also frought with impossible challenges: meeting high standards for all children; placating every upset child, parent, or teacher; keeping abreast of changing requirements from central office and state; supervising an extraordinary number of staff, on average, and a broad span of educational, management, and public relations activities. Our factor analysis shows us that these taxing aspects of the work operate in direct opposition to the rewarding aspects: the more taxing, the less rewarding. We should not forget, as well, that the obverse is true: the more rewarding, the less taxing.

Half of our 2005 sample tells us that the work is wearing them out and more than half say they cannot do their best work because of the nature of this job. Over the eight years of the study, many Maine principals have consistently reported that their work “intrudes” on their personal lives and that they struggle to “balance” personal and public lives. Jobs, we are told, that are physically, intellectually, and emotionally taxing require opportunities to refuel and to care for health and personal needs. They also require organizational conditions that support principals’ success. Our factor analysis points out the importance of faculty and community consensus to principals’ sense of effectiveness as leaders. To the extent that their work environments are unpredictable and unsupportive of school improvement, principals with high standards will be inclined to look elsewhere for work and even consider leaving school leadership altogether.

In short, the Maine principalship has much to recommend it and much that would cause talented educators to steer clear of it. As Maine faces the next generation of learning challenges for children and families face, it must come to grips with principal turnover that threatens to cut the legs out from under schools’ ability to improve. By 2009 when the next Maine Principals Survey is conducted, many current principals will have retired. It is our hope that the conditions in the principalship have improved enough by then to entice and sustain our best teachers to step into the shoes left empty by those departing principals.

References

Donaldson, G., Buckingham, D., and Coladarci, T. (2003) The Maine Principal Study: Stability and Change Among Maine Principals, 1997-2001. Orono, ME: College of Education and Human Development, The University of Maine.

Donaldson, G., & Hausman, C. (1998). Maine principals and their worklives: A study of the Maine school principalship. Orono, ME: College of Education and Human Development, The University of Maine.

Donaldson, G., & Hausman, C. (1999). What makes principals feel successful? Reston VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. The NASSP Bulletin, 83(608), 64-75.

Educational Research Service. (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in the principalship? An exploratory study. Prepared for the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Fenstermacher, G. (1999). Agenda for education in a democracy. In Smith & Fenstermacher (Eds.), Leadership for educational renewal: Developing a cadre of leaders (pp. 3-28). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hausman, C., Nebeker, A., McCreary, J., & Donaldson, G. (2002). The worklife of the assistant principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(2), 136-157.

Keller, B. (1998, November 11). Research: Principal matters. Education Week, pp. 25-27.

Leithwood, Kenneth, Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson and Kyla Wahlstrom (2004).

Review of Research on How Leadership Influences Student Learning. Toronto: OISE and Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota.

Murphy, J. (1992). The landscape of leadership preparation: Reframing the education of school administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Read, A. (1998). Conversations on the status of women school leaders in Maine: It doesn’t just concern women anymore. Augusta, ME: Maine Leadership Consortium.

APPENDIX A

Time Devoted to Family, Principalship, Other

(1997, 2001, 2005)

(Hours/Week)

1997 2001 2005

Spouse/Significant Other Dependents

Mean	24	28	27.97
Median			25.00

In Your Role as Principal

Mean	56	58	56.78
Median			55.00

Exercise/Caring for Health

% 3-6 hours	29	24.5	26.5%
% >6 hours	16	9.6	11.3%

Leisure/Hobbies

%>3-6 hours	28	24
%>6 hours	14	9.6	21.1%

APPENDIX B

Patterns of Principal Activity and Perceptions of Impact and Success

		1997		2001			2005
		Involve- ment	Suc- cess *		Involve- ment	Impact *		Involve- ment	Impact *
Student Management		3.13	3.34		3.02	3.20		2.95	3.13
Direct supervision of students		3.22	3.61		2.81	3.23		2.82	3.17
Resolving student [behavioral] problems		3.59	3.42		3.32	3.59		3.23	3.54
Organizing & supervising co-curricular activities		NA	NA		2.38	2.60		2.24	2.46
Organizing co-curricular activities		2.32	3.04		NA	NA		NA	NA
Supervising co-curricular activities		2.35	3.02		NA	NA		NA	NA
Contact with parent regarding child		3.48	3.51		3.39	3.49		3.28	3.40
Consulting with teachers about specific students		3.52	3.49		NA	NA		NA	NA
Special student issues (PET, G & T, etc.)		3.38	3.27		3.21	3.08		3.15	3.06
Resolving specific student learning issues		NA	NA		2.98	3.20		2.97	3.14

Personnel Management		3.07	3.19		3.16	3.23		3.11	3.17
Orientation of employees		3.00	3.14		NA	NA		NA	NA
Supervision/evaluation of teachers		3.59	3.25		3.47	3.37		3.49	3.36
Supervision/evaluation of support personnel		2.72	2.87		2.72	2.86		2.89	2.91
Social activities with staff		2.15	2.81		2.12	2.48		1.87	2.25
Schedule/assignment of work for all personnel		3.30	3.40		NA	NA		NA	NA
Recruitment of support personnel		2.08	2.68		NA	NA		NA	NA
Scheduling classes and other instructional events		3.05	3.44		3.21	3.25		3.23	3.22
Running faculty meetings		3.68	3.47		3.58	3.42		3.54	3.35
Responding to the needs of teachers		3.65	3.38		3.66	3.58		3.63	3.53
Responding to the needs of support personnel		3.23	3.23		3.28	3.28		3.15	3.21
Recruitment of instructional personnel		3.05	3.45		3.30	3.64		3.18	3.60
Coordinating staff efforts on a daily basis		3.18	3.26		3.07	3.20		2.99	3.10

Interactions with Education Hierarchy		3.02	3.12		2.99	2.76		2.96	2.61
District administrative team meetings		3.33	3.07		3.48	2.98		3.48	2.90
Consulting with superiors		2.98	3.28		2.89	2.90		2.80	2.81
Dealing with state/community agencies		2.27	2.66		2.20	2.29		2.18	2.17
Meeting with school board		3.21	3.20		3.40	2.86		3.23	2.66
Completing required reports		NA	NA		3.14	2.72		3.11	2.51

Continued


		1997			2001			2005
		Involve- ment	Suc- cess *		Involve- ment	Impac *t		Involve- ment	Impact *

Resource Management		2.95	3.15		2.73	2.81		2.84	2.81
Budget preparation		3.55	3.41		3.44	3.42		3.30	3.25
Monitoring condition of equipment		2.66	2.94		2.44	2.59		NA	NA
Fundraisers for the school		2.52	3.04		2.18	2.38		2.23	2.28
Purchasing/accounting		2.86	3.21		2.7	2.72		NA	NA
Monitoring condition of the building & grounds		3.19	3.12		2.94	2.92		2.99	2.91

Public Relations	2.98		3.15		3.06	3.13

2001

2005

n

%

Gender

Female

158

43.5

145

46.5

Male

205

56.5

167

53.5

Age

21-30

3

0.8

4

1.3

31-40

37

10.2

43

13.9

41-50

140

38.6

79

25.6

51 and over

183

50.4

183

59.2

Family condition

Married, significant other

313

86.2

262

83.7

Single, involved

22

6.1

20

6.4

Single, uninvolved

24

6.6

31

9.9

Dependents living at home

1 or more children

NA

55.4

NA

57.7

1 or more parents

NA

14.3

NA

17.6

1 or more others

NA

8.2

NA

11.0