An Analysis of Principal Attrition in a Large Urban School District

Principal attrition is a national problem particularly in large urban school districts. Research confirms that schools that serve high proportions of children living in poverty have the most difficulty attracting and retaining competent school leaders. Principals who are at the helm of high poverty schools have a higher turnover rate than the national average of three to four years and higher rates of teacher attrition. This leadership turnover has a fiscal impact on districts and negatively affects student achievement. Research identifies a myriad of reasons why administrators leave the role of principal: some leave the position for retirement; some exit based on difficulty of the role and lack of support; and some simply leave for other opportunities within and outside of the profession altogether. As expectations for both teacher and learner performance drive the national education agenda, understanding how to keep effective principals in their jobs is critical. This study examined the factors that principals in a large urban district identified as potentially affecting their decisions to stay in the position. The study utilized a multi-dimensional, web-based questionnaire to examine principals’ perceptions regarding contributing factors that impact tenure. Results indicated that: • having a quality teaching staff and establishing a positive work-life balance were important stay factors for principals; • having an effective supervisor and collegial support from other principals, were helpful supports; and • having adequate resources, time for long-term planning, and teacher support and resources were critical working conditions. Taken together, these indicators were the most frequently cited factors that would keep principals in their positions. The results were used to create a framework that may serve as a potential guide for addressing principal retention.

The Educational Imaginary in Radical Reconstruction: Congressional Public Policy Rhetoric and American Federalism, 1862-1872

Facing the exigencies of Emancipation, a South in ruins, and ongoing violence, between 1862 and 1872 the United States Congress debated the role education would play in the postbellum polity. Positing schooling as a panacea for the nation’s problems, a determiner of individual worth, and a way of ameliorating state and federal tensions, congressional leaders envisioned education as a way of reshaping American political life. In pursuit of this vision, many policymakers advocated national school agencies and assertive interventions into state educational systems. Interrogating the meaning of “education” for congressional leaders, this study examines the role of this ambiguous concept in negotiating the contradictions of federal and state identity, projecting visions of social change, evaluating civic preparedness, and enabling broader debates over the nation’s future. Examining legislative debates over the Reconstruction Acts, Freedmen’s Bureau, Bureau of Education, and two bills for national education reform in the early 1870s, this project examines how disparate educational visions of Republicans and Democrats collided and mutated amid the vicissitudes of public policy argument. Engaging rhetorical concepts of temporality, disposition, and political judgment, it examines the allure and limitations of education policy rhetoric, and how this rhetoric shifted amid the difficult process of coming to policy agreements in a tumultuous era. In a broader historical sense, this project considers the role of Reconstruction Era congressional rhetoric in shaping the long-term development of contemporary Americans’ “educational imaginary,” the tacit, often unarticulated assumptions about schooling that inflect how contemporary Americans engage in political life, civic judgment, and social reform. Treating the analysis of public policy debate as a way to gain insights into transitions in American political life, the study considers how Reconstruction Era debate converged upon certain common agreements, and obfuscated significant fault lines, that persist in contemporary arguments.