Principal Efficacy: Implications for Rural 'Grow Your Own' Leadership Programs

Abstract


 
 
 
 Although "grow your own" principal preparation programs have become a popular method for recruiting and selecting administrator candidates for hard to fill positions in both urban and rural schools, “grow your own” prinicpal candidates in rural contexts may be more vulnerable to the phenomenon of loss of self-efficacy. This study suggests that conditions related to candidate recruitment, social isolation, changing relationships with former colleagues, and lack of mentoring support can negatively affect aspiring principals’ beliefs and ultimately actions in leading rural schools. This study examines the loss of self-efficacy phenomenon, and suggests how university /school district partnerships might work to develop effective recruitment, support, and mentoring practices for rural 'grow your own' candidates.
 
 
 
 

Labor Dynamics of School Principals in Rural Contexts

“…Although education researchers have paid increasing attention to the importance of recruiting and retaining principals, staffing challenges related to school leadership, such as high turnover rates and principal sorting, are a continuing issue in the nation's K-12 schools (Bartanen et al, 2019;Gates et al, 2006;Grissom et al, 2019;Papa & Baxter, 2005;Rangel, 2018). Prior studies have recognized the distinct challenges that rural schools experience in the principal hiring process (Roza, 2003) and have raised concerns regarding the few applications that rural schools receive (Versland, 2013). Despite such concerns and the rhetoric surrounding principal shortages, this study finds that there is no shortage of principal applicants.…”

“Constant Communication”: Rural Principals' Leadership Practices During a Global Pandemic

“…Rural school leaders are met with serious challenges and opportunities to lead rural schools. Rural school leaders face challenges that include being professionally and geographically isolated (Ashton and Duncan, 2012;Versland, 2013;Casto, 2016;Parson et al, 2016;Hansen, 2018); recruiting and retaining quality school teachers (Du Plessis, 2014;Ulferts, 2016;Hohner and Riveros, 2017;Hansen, 2018;Hildreth et al, 2018); deepening and persistent poverty among students and their families (Schaefer et al, 2016;Farrigan, 2017;Showalter et al, 2017); and facing a lack of resources (Forner et al, 2012;Barrett et al, 2015;Ramon et al, 2019). The opportunities they face include leading smaller schools in more cohesive communities with less crime (Southworth, 2004).…”

Okul Yöneticilerinin Eğitiminde Dijital Olumlu Öyküleme Yönteminin Kullanımına Yönelik Bir Model Önerisi

“…Bazı araştırmacılar çalışmalarında okul yöneticilerini hazırlayan programların okul yöneticilerine sahip olmaları gereken yetenekleri kazandırmaktan uzak, üniversite temelli, zayıf ve işlevsiz (Bridges, 2012;Chu ve Cravens, 2012;Hallinger ve Bridges, 2016), birçok mesleki gelişim programının parçalanmış, eski, tutarsız, sürdürülemeyen, gelişigüzel, teorinin idari uygulamalarla uyumsuz (Hallinger, Shaobing ve Jiafang, 2017;Staub ve Bravender, 2014a), klinik deneyimden uzak, düzensiz veya öğrenme teknolojileri kullanımında yetersiz oldukları (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr ve Cohen, 2007;Şimşek, 2002;Yan ve Catherine Ehrich, 2009) yönünde eleştirilerde bulunmuşlardır. Yani okul yöneticilerinin eğitimleri için düzenlenen programların teori ağırlıklı ve okul yönetim uygulamalarından uzak olduğu belirtilmiştir (Ağaoğlu, Gültekin ve Çubukçu, 2002;Darling-Hammond ve diğerleri, 2007;Hallinger ve Lu, 2011;Staub ve Bravender, 2014b;Süngü, 2013;Versland, 2013, Yan ve Catherine Ehrich, 2009. Bu nedenle de okul yöneticilerinin karşılaştıkları yönetsel sorunların çözümlenmesine ilişkin tüm yeteneklerin eğitim programlarında kazandırılmasının çok zor olduğu söylenebilir.…”