Deepening the Bench: A State Effort to Further Develop Advanced Assistant Principals for the Principalship

• In Event: Starting With Support: Promising Practices and Pitfalls in Leadership Induction

Abstract

Objectives and Perspectives
Recent research describes how assistant principals (APs) are selected, promoted, and turn over, but the work of the AP is relatively understudied (Bartanen et al., 2020). This point stands in contrast to the growing numbers of APs in United States public schools, which have increased by 83% since 1991 (Goldring et al., 2021). While a recent report from Goldring and colleagues (2021) used several state administrative datasets to examine the roles of APs, few peer-reviewed, empirical studies have described—much less assessed—state efforts to identify, prepare, place, and continue developing APs. In fact, few states even have laws or policies that specifically pertain to APs (Authors, in press).

In response to these gaps, we conducted this concurrent exploratory mixed-methods study (Creswell, 2015) to examine the Experienced Assistant Principal Initiative (EAPI), an induction program sponsored by a mid-Atlantic state education agency (SEA). We wanted to learn more about how EAPI participants described their leadership approach along with their desired outcomes of and experiences with EAPI. The SEA created EAPI as a one-year program consisting of monthly two-day workshops that were co-facilitated by faculty members from a regional university and experienced practitioners.

Data and Methods
We collected data from EAPI’s inaugural cohort of 12 Fellows (current APs in their third year in the role) and 12 Mentors (experienced principals) (N = 24). Fellows attended workshops, and Fellows and Mentors met between workshops to discuss workshop content and other related issues. To collect data, we administered four quarterly free-response surveys and conducted two rounds of semi-structured interviews with the 12 Fellows and 12 Mentors at EAPI’s midpoint and end. Survey and interview data were analyzed using an integrated coding scheme (Bradley et al., 2007) consisting of open and deductive codes derived from existing literature and research questions. We collapsed open codes into axial and selective codes via the data reduction process and then devised data-based, evidentiary assertions (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Saldaña, 2015).

Findings and Significance
Most Fellows described using a collaborative, democratic approach to school leadership and management, but offered few examples of implementing this approach in their schools. Fellows also desired scores of things from EAPI, particularly “specific knowledge of physically running a building.” Few Fellows, though, reported wanting more sophisticated ways to think about school leadership and management. Yet, Fellows offered numerous examples of grappling with moments of cognitive dissonance during many workshops that prompted them to “think differently.” Fellows unexpectedly found each workshop’s emphasis on the thinking related to leading and managing schools as useful to building their competence as future principals.

These findings, which complement other work on APs, begin to address the near absence of rigorous, empirical research on state-level efforts to prepare and develop APs. To staff schools with qualified principals and to better ensure equity in the principal pipeline (see Gates et al., 2019), it is imperative to examine how APs are equipped with the mindsets and resources necessary to lead and, ultimately, transform schools into places that serve all students.

Authors

• Bryan A. VanGronigen, University of Delaware
  Presenting Author

• Lauren P. Bailes, University of Delaware
  Non-Presenting Author