0.2 Beach, g., & Keiser, k. (october 2011). to be or not to be..  (Page 4/10)

The current position of building principal may be seen as a culmination of evolving job descriptions and duties, and position expectations. Murphy (1998) outlines that the beginnings of the building level principalship can be traced back to 1900-1946. During this time, programs tended to stress the technical and mechanical aspects of administration, specific and immediate tasks, and the practical aspects of the job. From 1947-1985, the position of educational administrator underwent rapid growth. While approximately 125 institutions were in the business of preparing school leaders in 1946, 40 years later over 500 were involved. The number of doctoral degrees doubled during each decade throughout this period. From 1986 to the present, observers of the field of education argue that school administrators were managers, nurturing a dysfunctional and costly bureaucracy. Across the spectrum of those involved in education, there is a cry for leadership being heard on all fronts.

Now the scope of expertise that a principal needs continues to expand (Reddekopp, 2008). Grubb and Flessa (2006) suggest that the multiple demands on the principal and the related image of the strong principal carrying all the burdens of running and improving the school come in part from conventional rational models of organizations, relying on a hierarchical division of labor with the principal at the apex. As the conceptualizations of schools and schooling for the future change, the complexities and demands of the principalship are likely to increase (Cranston, 2007). The building-level principal is responsible for supervising teachers, coordinating bus schedules, communicating with parents, disciplining children, overseeing the cafeteria and commons, supervising special education and other categorical programs, and responding to all the “stuff that walks in the door” (Grubb&Flessa, 2006, p.519). Typically, it is the principal who remains in the hot seat and who, under self-managing school models, essentially is now responsible and accountable for almost everything that happens in the school (Cranston, 2007).

In addition to the managerial and political tasks that have historically engaged principals, reformers have demanded that principals become instructional leaders (Grubb&Flessa, 2006). The job is now more challenging because school reform mandates place greater emphasis on principals being instructional leaders directing the effort to improve student achievement (Winter&Morgenthal, 2002). In an era of accountability, policy makers have imposed new requirements, and the principal is responsible for enhancing progress on multiple (and often conflicting) measures of educational achievement (Grubb&Flessa, 2006). As a building leader, the principal has to recognize that she/he will have to operate within the context of the organization or within a set of mandates established or heavily shaped by another agency (Guthrie&Schuermann, 2010).

The building level principalship is particularly important for poorly performing schools. The passage of the federal “No Child Left Behind” legislation (2001) and later legislation raised the stakes for schools and principals as the law calls for the removal of principals in their schools if students fail to meet standards for AYP – adequate yearly progress (Cusick, 2003) .