Journal of Educational Administration

Successful school principalship in small schools

John Ewington Bill Mulford Diana Kendall Bill Edmunds Lawrie Kendall Halia Silins

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

Article information:
To cite this document:
John Ewington Bill Mulford Diana Kendall Bill Edmunds Lawrie Kendall Halia Silins, (2008),"Successful
school principalship in small schools", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 46 Iss 5 pp. 545 - 561
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230810895483
Downloaded on: 15 October 2014, At: 06:25 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 22 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1398 times since 2008*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Stephen L. Jacobson, Christopher Day, Kenneth Leithwood, Lejf Moos, John Krejsler, Klaus Kasper Kofod,
Bent Brandt Jensen, (2005),"Successful school principalship in Danish schools", Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 43 Iss 6 pp. 563-572
Pierre Tulowitzki, (2013),"Leadership and school improvement in France", Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 51 Iss 6 pp. 812-835 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03-2012-0026
Boe Lahui#Ako, (2001),"The instructional leadership behaviour of Papua New Guinea high school
principals # A provincial case study", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 39 Iss 3 pp. 233-265

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 394654 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

Successful school principalship

in small schools
John Ewington, Bill Mulford, Diana Kendall, Bill Edmunds,
Lawrie Kendall and Halia Silins

Successful
school
principalship
545

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

Leadership for Learning Research Group, Faculty of Education,

University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
Abstract
Purpose The special characteristics of small schools appear to set them apart from larger schools.
In fact, small schools may be a discrete group in that their complexity may not be in direct ratio to
their size. The special characteristics of small schools may include the absence of senior staff,
administrative assistance on a part time basis only, conservatism and role conflict within the
community, and lack of professional interaction. This paper aims to explore these issues by analysing
data from a recent survey on Tasmania successful school principalship.
Design/methodology/approach Results from a survey with the population of Tasmanian
principals in schools of 200 or less students are compared with previous research findings from the
limited literature in the area.
Findings The study has confirmed that contextual demands result in role conflict for teaching
principals, that principals of small rural schools are mobile, staying for short periods of time, and that
a higher proportion are female. Statistically significant differences were found among small rural
schools of 100 or fewer students and small rural and urban schools of between 101 and 200 students.
These differences were best explained by combination of the double load phenomenon and the
increasingly mandated requirements for the implementation of growing amounts of Department of
Education policy, rather than rurality or socio-economic status.
Practical implications Given the combination of the expected large turnover in the principalship
in Australian schools over the next five to ten years, the high proportion of small schools (at least
one-quarter) and the unlikely change to the traditional career path wherein, for many, becoming a
principal of a small school is the initial step progressively moving to large schools, the findings add
weight to the need for greater attention to be paid to small school principalship.
Originality/value The study adds to the very limited research into successful school principalship
in small schools.
Keywords Schools, Leadership, Critical success factors, Principals, Australia
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
School leadership is sensitive to context (Leithwood and Riehl, 2003) but literature
about school leadership is often undifferentiated paying little attention to
characteristics of particular school environments (Southworth, 2002). The special
characteristics of small schools appear to set them apart from larger schools. In fact,
small schools may be a discrete group (Forward, 1998) in that their complexity may not
be in direct ratio to their size (Dunning, 1993). The special characteristics of small
schools may include the absence of senior staff, administrative assistance on a part
time basis only, conservatism and role conflict within the community, and lack of
professional interaction. This paper will explore these issues by analysing data from a
survey on Tasmania successful school principalship.

Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 46 No. 5, 2008
pp. 545-561
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578230810895483

JEA
46,5

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

546

Background
A recent review of research in the last five years in four of the major Australian
educational journals on educational leadership (Mulford, 2007) unearthed only five
studies on small schools (Boylan, 2005; Clarke and Wildy, 2004; Hatton, 2001; Lester,
2003; Wildy and Clarke, 2005). The lack of research into the work of principals in small
schools reflects the misconception that their principalship is just a scaled down
picture of larger schools (Lester, 2003). Staff in small rural schools can feel overlooked
and undervalued with the perceived preoccupation of policy makers with larger
schools in urban environments (Lester, 2003). Principals of small schools also have the
dual role of teaching and being an educational leader (Lester, 2003; Murdoch and
Schiller, 2002; Springbett, 2004). This is not a recent issue as 40 years ago the Gittens
Report (1967, as cited in Dunning, 1993) acknowledged the problem of double load.
The main concerns of teaching principals have been found to be inadequate release
time, inadequate professional preparation and support, inadequate time for
instructional leadership, isolation, and few opportunities for career advancement
(Murdoch and Schiller, 2002). Principals felt guilty, frustrated and overwhelmed by
heavy workloads, to the extent that their health, family and relationships were
suffering. Also, teaching principals of small schools were found to be unprepared to
deal with the resulting tensions and dilemmas associated with instructional leadership
and management, system and local community expectations, and personal and
community values (Lashway, 2003; Lester, 2003; Wildy and Clarke, 2005). However,
Southworth (2002) found successful principals of small schools experienced significant
development and growth in their confidence and sense of self. Their ability to cope and
survive the trials and challenges of being a leader of a small school developed their
self-esteem.
The relative importance of small schools is amplified when it is recognised that they
and their principals can play an extended and vital role in the community (Nolan, 1998)
and its social capital formation (Kilpatrick et al., 2002). Understandably, this
characteristic of small schools is particularly evident when they are located in rural
and remote areas, which is often the case in Australia. It is also in these more remote
environments that parents may have little option but to accept the educational
provision on offer from the local school. It is therefore critical to ensure that children in
rural/remote small schools have as many educational advantages as they would
experience elsewhere, a requirement that places an especially onerous responsibility on
leaders who have to contend with these circumstances (Clarke, 2002).
There can be a lack of training for the role of principals in small schools,
particularly in the area of management and dealing with the micro politics of small
communities, and the role conflict that often occurs as a result. It is not unusual for
there to be a gulf between what the new principals think the job will be and the reality
of the job of being a principal in a small school in remote and isolated areas
(Southworth, 2002).
The problems faced by some principals in small schools may contribute to their not
wanting to continue in the role (Gronn, 2007). The fact that this situation has not
received greater attention by policy, practice and research is difficult to understand
given that a quarter of schools in Australia can be classified as small (Anderson et al.,
2007) and the principalship of a small school is for many the first step in a career in
school leadership.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

The context
In Tasmania, there are 139 primary schools (years K-6), 27 combined primary and
secondary schools (district high, years K-10/12), 31 secondary schools (years 7-10/12),
eight senior secondary colleges (years 11-12) and 10 special schools (years K-10,
including early learning services).
A new Tasmanian education structure was implemented as a result of a 2004 review
commissioned by the Minister of Education. At the same time, the system was
implementing the Essential Learnings (ELs), a major curriculum reform, which
involved changes to the curriculum from birth to Year Ten. Consultation had been
undertaken during 2000-2001 with a wide range of stakeholders about what values
should underpin education in government schools, and what purposes should guide the
development of curriculum. The results of this curriculum consultation showed
considerable support for change and for a curriculum that actively and clearly
supports the personal growth and development of students and the education of
students for social responsibility. There was also overwhelming support for the
principles underpinning ELs and the inclusive approach to implementation, termed
co-construction, that is, teachers and departmental officers working cooperatively to
develop ELs.
At the time of the successful school principals project (SSPP), services and support
were provided to schools through the southern, northern and north-western branches,
each with a director; and schools across the state were grouped into 27 clusters. A board
of principals associated with each of the clusters of schools coordinated learning
support, particularly for students with special and additional needs. Support services
for these students were provided by support teachers, guidance officers, social workers
and speech and language pathologists, who were based in schools.
In 2005, the Department of Education (DoE) changed its strategies of implementing
ELs when a reporting system was released. Implementation strategies changed from
co-construction, empowering schools and recognising the professional status of
teachers to system-lead curriculum activities developed for all teachers and schools.
The introduction of the ELs into schools had occurred in phases but the centrally
developed and controlled computerised reporting system known as the student
assessment reporting information system was introduced in one year. Teachers in
schools in these beginning phases of curriculum development for the ELs were
seriously disadvantaged compared with those in schools where the implementation
was well established. The minister for education came under intense pressure in the
parliament and from an increasingly hostile press about outcomes-based education.
The result was even greater use of mandated centrally driven strategies and an
increased dissatisfaction of teachers and principals in schools (Watt, 2007).
The study
The samples and methodology
In this context, of growing dissatisfaction of those in Tasmanian schools, in late 2005
and early 2006, surveys on successful school principalship were distributed to all 195
government schools (excluding colleges and special schools). A total of 131 survey
responses were received from principals representing a return rate of 67 per cent. Small
schools represent 27 per cent of all public schools in Tasmania and of our sample. The
ratio of small schools of 100 or less students to small schools of between 101 and

Successful
school
principalship
547

JEA
46,5

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

548

200 students in the sample was the same ratio for the population of schools in
Tasmania as a whole (that is 47 and 53 per cent, respectively).
Surveys sought responses from principals, and in most cases teachers, in areas such
as demographic characteristics, leadership characteristics, values and beliefs, tensions
and dilemmas, learning and development, school capacity building, decision making,
evaluation and accountability, and perceptions of school success. In addition,
principals were asked to respond to three open-ended items in the survey, listing the
three most important improvements in their schools during the last five years, the three
most important changes that they would like to see in their schools in the next five
years, and the conditions that they know about in their schools that they do not talk
about but, if they did, might lead to school improvement.
Data generated from the surveys are reported as percentages, rankings and/or mean
scores. Mean score comparisons are made using t-tests (two-tailed) and statistically
significant differences at the 0.05 level of significance reported.
Definition of a small school
The definition of small schools is not consistent across Australian states and
territories. For example, Victoria classifies a small school as 70 or fewer students,
NSW, 160 or less and the Northern Territory, 133 or less. For this study, a small school
was defined as having less than 201 full time equivalent (FTE) students. In Tasmania,
schools with less than 201 FTE students have no entitlement to senior staff other than
the principal. Also, schools of 100-200 FTE students do not attract small school
support in their staffing formula. Throughout the data analysis, further differentiation
was made between schools less than or equal to 100 as small type one (STO) schools,
and greater than 100 and less than or equal to 200 as Small Type Two (STT) schools.
All STO schools were rural schools. The SST schools were further differentiated into
urban and rural.
The mean size of all small schools was 114 FTE students. STT urban schools had a
mean size of 168 FTE students compared with 151 for STT rural schools. The mean
size of STO rural schools was 65 FTE.
Demographic characteristics of principals
Responses to the demographic data were analysed according to all principals in the
study and between principals of STO schools and STT schools rural/urban.
This analysis is shown in Tables I and II.
For principals of all schools and small schools, gender differences showed a similar
ratio of males to females, with males and females in small schools 54-46 per cent, and
for all principals in the study 57-43 per cent, respectively. However, there was
considerable variation between the subgroups. In STO schools, in marked contrast to
the overall distribution, 41 per cent of principals were male and 59 per cent were
female. A similar ratio was found for both STT rural and urban schools, with 67 per
cent male and 33 per cent female principals.
The average age for principals of small schools (45.23 years) was lower than the
average age of all principals in the SSPP research project (51.44). There was a bi-modal
distribution in the age of female principals in STO rural schools, with 50 per cent being
aged up to 35 years and 40 per cent aged 45 years or older. This is shown in Figure 1.

All
principals in
the study

Demographic item

Principals
of small
schools

Principals
of STO
schools

Principals
Principals
of STT schools of STT schools
urban
rural

Successful
school
principalship

Per cent

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

Gender
M
F
Age
Years as principal
Years as principal in
current position
No. of previous
schools as principal
Years as a teacher
Qualifications
(1 diploma,
5 doctorate)
Background in
leadership training
years

Demographic
item
Economic needs
index of the
school
Hours of
principal
teaching
Hours worked in
a typical week
Hours worked in
a typical week
alone
Hour worked in a
typical week with
parents

57
43

54
46

51.44
9.4

45.23
6.69

4.6

3.71

2.5
28.6

67
33

67
33

47.33
8.11

47.3
10.33

3.88

2.44

4.67

1.23
21.78

0.29
19

2.67
24.89

1.56
23.89

3.03

2.24

3.27

2.69

Principals of
STT schools
(101-200) rural

Principals of
STT schools
(101-20) urban

Principals
of all schools
in the study

41
59
Mean
43
4

Mean
Principals of Principals of
small schools STO schools
(,100)
(,200)

4.71

4.96

4.94

4.33

6.67

2.61

9.77

12.71

6.44

7.56

57.85

56.68

56.63

58.56

55.56

6.09

5.00

4.67

3.50

7.29

3.79

2.97

2.76

2.67

3.75

The mean years of experience as a principal was 6.69 for principals of small schools,
lower than the 9.40 for all principals. The mean years of experience for principals of
STT schools in urban areas (10.33) was slightly higher than the average years of
experience of all principals, but the average years of experience of principals in STO
rural schools (4.00) was lower than any other group of principals. The mean years
experience for STT rural school principals was 8.11.

549

Table I.
Demographic
characteristics
of principals

Table II.
Demographic
characteristics of the
principals role

JEA
46,5

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

550

Figure 1.
Small school principal
gender and age differences

For principals of STT schools rural, the mean years in their current position (2.44) was
the lowest for any group of principals, and the mean for the number of previous schools
of which they had been a principal (2.67) was the highest for all subgroups.
Combined, this information indicates that at the time of the survey, principals of
small schools were inexperienced and mobile in rural areas compared with urban
areas.
Responses regarding the number of schools as a principal for STO school principals
shows a mean of 0.29, which suggests that principals of STO rural schools were highly
likely to be in their first posting as principal. This lack of experience as a principal is
consistent with other Australian studies (Wildy, 2004; Lester, 2003). Further, the
percentage of principals, irrespective of age and gender, in small schools who had a post
graduate qualification was 34 per cent, much lower than the 72 per cent for all principals.
Principals of STO schools would have been responsible also for setting the
curriculum, preparing for individual teaching sequences, marking and assessing work,
preparing for and writing reports, and being involved with parents in the dual roles as
classroom teacher and principal. In contrast, principals of schools of above 200 FTE
students (STT schools) teach on average 2.8 hours per week, and would not have been
involved with planning for a specific class beyond the actual hours they taught, and
would not be involved with preparing and writing of individual reports.
A total of 22 hours of face-to-face teaching was the mandated full time teaching load
in public schools at the time of the survey. The number of hours spent teaching (12.71)
was highest for principals of STO schools with principals of STT urban schools teaching
(7.56) slightly longer than principals of STT rural schools (6.44). The mean total hours
worked per week, approximately 57 hours, was consistent for all groups of principals.
From responses to other survey items, it was found that female, when compared
with male, principals reported working longer on school related matters away from
school, felt more supported by branch office officials and considered themselves more
considerate and respectful of staff. Male principals were more likely to be proud of
their school than female principals.
Also, principals of small schools experience difficulty fulfilling a requirement to
attend meetings outside the school, such as branch and cluster meetings. As a teaching

principal, relief teachers would need to be engaged in order to attend meetings, and
time spent communicating teaching requirements to the relief teacher. The following
comments from principals made to researchers, at the time of distributing and collecting
the surveys, demonstrate their feelings about this double load phenomenon:
I applied for the position of Principal to this school and find myself now later realising I was
successful for two jobs for the price of one.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

Try as I might one cannot do both jobs to the best of ones ability. It is impossible to be the
best Principal I can be and the Best class teacher I know I can be.
Then at the end of the day, instead of spending two hours preparing stimulating high quality
work and learning environments I spend half an hour preparing and three hours managing
the school and if Im lucky, providing real leadership. It is the students we serve who are let
down the most.
My involvement in cluster initiatives this year has been minimal due to the actual time
needed to follow-up cluster activities. To elect not to attend these meetings further
exacerbates the disadvantage experienced by small isolated schools.
If I am lucky my two days off class allow me to keep my head above water. It is taken up with
the job of managing. There is little time for real leadership. Of course, it is to this that we
all aspire. To do this has required 50-60 hour weeks, much to the disappointment of my
supportive young family.

Results
Responses to open-ended items
Principals were asked to respond to three open-ended items in the survey, listing the
three most important improvements in their schools during the last five years, the three
most important changes that they would like to see in their schools in the next
five years, and the conditions that they know about in their schools that they do not
talk about but, if they did, might lead to school improvement.
The most frequently mentioned items by all primary school principals, in importance
for both improvements over the last five years and most important changes in the
next five years, were Curriculum and pedagogical reform (36 and 32 per cent,
respectively) and Creating and maintaining a safe, supportive environment(26/21 per
cent). These items were also most frequently mentioned in importance by principals of
small schools (34/23 per cent and 20/17 per cent, respectively).
Responses show that for Future changes that might lead to school improvement
all primary school principals most frequently mentioned Quality professional
development (35 per cent) and Community (24 per cent), with a higher frequency for
Community from principals of small schools (30/46 per cent, respectively). Typical
responses included:
More professional conversations about teaching and learning.
Staff attitudes towards others within the school.
Teacher attitudes about the capabilities of their students.
Influencing parent/home values and expectations.

Successful
school
principalship
551

JEA
46,5

552

Relationships with the system was the next most frequently mentioned response by
all principals (21 per cent), with a low-frequency level from principals of small schools
(7 per cent).
Principals of STO schools were much more likely to comment on community
relationships than principals from STT schools (ratio 3:1). Some comments relating to
community relationships made by principals of small schools were as follows:
Tackling community bullying and harassment.
Resolution of issues through restorative justice and promoting positive outcomes that the
community values education and its outcomes for students.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

The school dealing with, or perceived to be responsible for, dysfunctional family and
community issues.
Lack of support in the community and parents rely on the school to provide support for
personal issues unrelated to the role of the school.

Survey item analysis

The following sections report data from the survey under the headings of personal
leadership characteristics, capacity building, perceptions of success (students), the
social goals of schooling, accountability, tensions and dilemmas, perceptions of student
background and attainment, and principals values and beliefs. A mean comparison,
using t-tests, is made between principals of small primary schools and all other
principals, which is followed by an analysis of the three subgroups.
Personal leadership characteristics. Principals were asked to indicate the importance
of leadership characteristics and the extent to which they were demonstrated in their
practice, using a five-point scale. The responses to these characteristics allow us to
examine similarities and differences in perception between principals of small schools
and other principals.
In Tables III and IV, sets of leadership characteristics are shown. The range of mean
scores on these items for principals of small schools is from 3.74 (the middle of the
range of 1-5) to 4.57 (often to always), whereas the range of mean scores for All other
principals is from 4.08 (often) to 4.75 (always). The ranking of the items are very
similar with only give a sense of overall purpose and ensuring that core values

Item

Table III.
Leadership
characteristics:
personal (practice)

Ethical
Proud of the school
Promotes democratic principles
Believe I can make a difference
Give a sense of overall purpose
Courageous
Initiates new projects
Ensure that core values are regularly articulated and
communicated throughout the school

Principals:
All other
small schools
principals
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank Sig.
4.57
4.51
4.37
4.14
3.91
3.91
3.77

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

4.73
4.75
4.34
4.44
4.14
4.33
4.08

2
1
4
3
7
5
8

3.74

4.22

0.04
0.03
0.01
0.01

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

Item
Ethical
I believe I can make a difference
Proud of the school
Promotes democratic principles
Give a sense of overall purpose
Ensure that core values are regularly articulated and
communicated throughout the school
Courageous
Initiates new projects

STO
Rural

Small schools mean scores

STT
STT
Rank Rural Rank Urban

Rank

4.44
4.00
4.78
4.56
4.22

3
6.5
1
2
3.5

4.53
4.06
4.47
4.29
3.71

1
4
2
3
6.5

4.78
4.44
4.33
4.33
4.00

1
2
3
4
5

4.00
3.89
4.22 *

6.5
8
3.5

3.53
4.00
3.71

8
5
6.5

3.89
3.78
3.44 *

6
7
8

Note: *Statistically significantly different at 0.05 level of significance

being two points apart. On every item except one, promotes democratic principles,
principals of small schools (4.37) score higher than All other principals (4.34).
Four items, proud of the school, believe I can make a difference, courageous
and initiates new projects, indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05
level of significance. Results are shown in Table III.
Responses to leadership characteristics were analysed according to STO principals
and STT principals, both urban and rural. Except for one item, no significant
differences were found between these sub-groups of small school principals regarding
leadership characteristics. For the item, initiates new projects there is a statistically
significant difference between the means of STO principals and the means of STT
principals urban ( p 0.05).
Capacity building. There were 28 items investigating the principals contribution to
school capacity building. Principals were asked to rate on a five-point scale (1/not at
all to 5/high) how evident the characteristic was in their school, how they as
principal had contributed and the amount of improvement over the past five years.
Responses to all capacity building items as being evident in their school indicates
mean scores ranging from 3.50 (mid-point scale) to 4.66. All other principals rate higher
than principals of small schools on all items except one, i.e. concrete feedback is given to
staff on teaching learning behaviour. There is a statistically significant difference (0.05
level of significance) between the mean scores of All other principals and principals of
small schools on items there is collaboration among staff to improve student outcomes
(Mean 4.60 compared with 4.23), high expectations are expressed to staff in relation to
teaching and learning behaviour (Mean 4.44/4.09), and leadership is distributed amongst
a wide number of staff (Mean 4.34/3.97). These results are shown in Table V.
Perceptions of student success (current level of achievement). Principals were asked
to indicate how they perceived the success of the students in their school. Both
principals of small schools and all principals rank the current level of achievement of
their students for two items that students were in a physically and psychologically
safe environment and that students were technically competent as Rank one and
two, respectively. Mean scores range from 3.13 to 3.95 that is, the mid-point to high
level. There is a statistically significant difference ( p , 0.05) between the mean
scores for All other principals (mean 3.75) and principals of small schools

Successful
school
principalship
553

Table IV.
Leadership
characteristics
personal (practice)

JEA
46,5

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

554

Table V.
Capacity building
(evident)

Item
The professional development is relevant
to staff needs
There is an ongoing professional
development program for all staff
Staff is empowered to participate in
making decisions about the school
Stimulate staff to think about what they
are doing for their students
There is collaboration amongst staff to
improve student outcomes
High expectations are expressed to staff
in relation to teaching, learning and
behaviour
Leadership is distributed amongst a wide
number of staff
Concrete feedback is given to staff on
teaching, learning and behaviour
There is a regular monitoring of what
happens outside the school

Principals of small
schools

Rank

All other
principals

4.46

4.33

4.43

4.66

4.40

4.39

4.37

4.56

4.23

4.60

0.01

4.09

4.44

0.01

3.97

4.34

0.02

3.77

3.57

3.6

3.72

Rank Sig.

(mean 3.32) for the item responsible and democratic citizens. Both All other
principals and principals of small schools ranked lowest inquiring and reflective
thinkers at rank nine, and at the mid-point of the scale (mean 3.36 and 3.14,
respectively). Table VI presents these results.
The social goals of school (practice). Principals were asked to respond on a five-point
scale to 13 items related to the social goals of schools on two scales, importance and
extent reflected in practice. The five-point scales increased from not important to
crucial for the importance scale and low to high for the extent reflected in practice
scale. The two items the students have developed self confidence (means 3.80 and
3.86) and the students have increased their self-knowledge (means 3.57 and 3.80,

Item

Table VI.
Perceptions of student
success (current level of
achievement)

In a physically and psychologically safe

environment
Technologically competent
Literate
Numerate
High achievers in their work
Effective in written, spoken and aesthetic
communication
Self-directed
Responsible and democratic citizens
Inquiring and reflective thinkers

Principals
of small schools

Rank

All other
principals

Rank

3.77
3.66
3.60
3.54
3.46

1
2
3
4
5

3.95
3.76
3.68
3.69
3.60

1
2
5
4
6

3.43
3.34
3.32 *
3.14

6
7
8
9

3.58
3.47
3.75 *
3.36

7
8
3
9

Note: *Statistically significantly different at 0.05 level of significance

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

at the mid-point of the scale), were ranked at one and two by both sets of principals
(all principals and principals of small schools). All other principals and principals of
small schools ranked all items in a similar fashion, with no item being more than one
point apart on the ranking scale. There is a statistically significant difference between
the mean scores (2.29 compared with 3.11) of principals of small schools and all other
principals on the item, the students understand the importance of being able to, and
wanting to have an influence (at the 0.05 level of significance) as shown in Table VII.
Principals of STT rural schools rank the students have developed self confidence
at number one, whereas STT Urban school principals rank this item as equal second,
and they rank the item students do not accept discrimination, at number one. There
is a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of STO (3.47) and STT
rural school principals (4.22), as well as STT urban (3.78) at the 0.05 level of
significance, on the item the students have developed self confidence. Principals of
STO schools exhibit a lower mean score on all other items than STT rural school
principals and STT urban school principals, except for one item. Table VIII shows
these results.
Accountability. There were 16 items about accountability. Some items asked for a
response on an importance scale (1/low importance to 5/high importance). Other items
asked for a rating response (1 low to 5 high). All accountability items, when compared
across types of schools, showed the lowest mean scores for STO schools (ranked 3)
followed by STT urban schools (ranked 2) and STT rural schools (ranked 1). Principals
of small schools perceive a higher level of accountability in their schools with their
mean scores ranging from 4.56 to 4.89. There is statistically significance difference
between the mean scores for STO schools and STT rural schools, and there is also a

Item
The students have developed self-confidence
The students have increased their
self-knowledge
The students dare to try new things and
show satisfaction in overcoming difficulties
Students do not accept discrimination
The students use many different ways of
expressing themselves
When conflicts occur the student most often
know how to solve them through negotiation
The students show in different ways that
they have adapted democratic values, for
instance, in discussions and in different
decision-making processes
The students understand the importance of
being able to, and wanting to, have an
influence
The students have a critical approach which
promotes many discussions and exchange of
ideas

Principals of small
schools

Rank

All other
principals

Rank

3.80

3.86

3.57

3.80

3.54
3.49

3
4

3.67
3.70

5
4

3.46

3.73

3.29

3.57

3.26

3.54

3.11 *

2.29 *

3.06

3.51

Note: *Statistically significantly different at 0.05 level of significance

Successful
school
principalship
555

Table VII.
Social goals of schooling
(reflected in practice)

JEA
46,5
Item

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

556

Table VIII.
Social goals of schooling
(reflected in practice)

The students have developed self confidence

The students have increased their self-knowledge
The students dare to try new things and show
satisfaction in overcoming difficulties
Students do not accept discrimination
The students use many different ways of expressing
themselves
The students show in different ways that they have
adapted democratic values, for instance, in
discussions and in different decision-making
processes
The students understand the importance of being
able to, and wanting to, have an influence
The students have a critical approach which
promotes many discussions and exchange of ideas
When conflicts occur the student most often know
how to solve them through negotiation

Small schools: number of pupils mean scores

STO
STT
STT
Rural Rank Rural Rank Urban Rank
3.47 *
3.29

1
2

4.22 *
4.00

1
2

3.78 * *
3.67

2.5
4.5

3.24
3.18

4
6

4.00
3.67

3
4

3.67
3.89

4.5
1

3.24

3.56

5.5

3.78

2.5

3.12

3.56

5.5

3.22

7.5

2.88

3.56

3.11

2.82

3.33

3.22

7.5

3.24

3.22

3.44

Notes: *Statistically significantly different at 0.05 level of significance; * *STT urban statistically
significantly different from STT rural at 0.05 level of significance

statistically significance difference between the mean scores of STT urban and STT
rural (at the 0.05 level of significance). On the item accountability to school authorities
for the level of pupil achievement there is statistically significance difference between
the mean scores of STO schools and STT rural schools, and there is statistically
significance difference between the mean scores of STT urban schools and STT rural
schools on the item accountability to school authorities for monitoring school
outcomes, at the 0.05 level of significance. Table IX shows these results.

Item
Accountability to school authorities for the
level of pupil achievement
Extent to which stakeholders are involved
Accountability to school authorities for
monitoring school outcomes
Accountability for implementing policy made
by school authorities (regional, national, local)
Accountability for involving parents and the
local community in school
Table IX.
Accountability

Small schools: number of pupils mean scores

100 and
less
101-200
To 200
Rural Rank Rural Rank Urban Rank
3.88 *
4.06

2
4

4.89 *
4.78

1
2

4.33 * *
4.33

1.5
1.5

4.12 *

4.78 *

4.22 * *

3.5

4.06

4.67

4.22

3.5

4.06

4.56

4.11

Notes: *Statistically significantly different at 0.05 level of significance; * *STT urban statistically
significantly different from STT rural, at 0.05 level of significance. Rating 1/low to 5/high

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

Tensions and dilemmas. There were nine items related to leadership tensions and
dilemmas which required a response on a five-point frequency scale of 1/never to
5/always. There is a statistically significance difference between the mean scores of
principals of small schools and All other principals (for two items, I experience tensions
between the need to be present at school and the need to participate outside school
(4.23 and 3.67) and for the item I feel it difficult in determining what constitutes
success (2.57 and 2.13), at the 0.05 level of significance, as shown in Table X.
Perception of students background and attainment. Responses to three items
requiring a rating from 1/low to 5/high referred to the perceptions of students
background and attainment can be found in Table XI, below. For every item, All other
principals indicate mean scores higher than principals of small schools. There is a
statistically significance difference between the means of All other principals (4.10) and
principals of small schools (3.74) for the item reputation of the school in the
community, at the 0.05 level of significance, as shown in Table XI.
Values and beliefs. As shown in Table XII, there were statistically significant
differences between the mean scores of All other principals (3.57) and principals of
small schools (3.14) for the item actively promote social justice in the community and
All other principals (4.72) and principals of small schools (4.29) for the item parents
have a right to choose a school for their children ( p , 0.05).

Item
I experience tensions between the need to be present
at school and the need to participate outside school
I experience tensions between loyalty to my
employers and the need to take part in the public
discourse about schooling
I feel tensions between my loyalty to the
expectations of my employers and the priorities
made at school
I feel it difficult in determining what constitutes
success
I experience ethical dilemmas that have made me
consider resigning my job as a school leader

Principal of small
schools
Mean
Rank

All other
principals
Mean
Rank

4.23 *

3.67 *

3.46

3.14

3.34

3.07

2.57 *

2.13 *

2.31

2.03

Note: *Statistically significantly different at 0.05 level of significance. 1 never to 5 always

Item

Principal of small
schools
Mean
Rank

All other
principals
Mean
Rank

Reputation of the school in the community

Supportive home educational environment
Extent of socio-economic disadvantage of students

3.74 *
3.17
3.03

4.10 *
3.34
3.45

Note: *Statistically significantly different at 0.05 level of significance

1
2
3

1
2
3

Successful
school
principalship
557

Table X.
Tensions

Table XI.
Perceptions of students
background
and attainment

JEA
46,5
Item

558

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

Table XII.
Values and beliefs

Actively promote social justice in the school

community
Parents have a right to choose a school for their
children

Principal of small
schools
Mean
Rank

All other
principals
Mean
Rank

4.29 *

4.72 *

3.14 *

3.57 *

Note: *Statistically significantly different at 0.05 level of significance. 1 strongly agree, 5 strongly
disagree

Summary and conclusion

In summary, principals of small schools, especially those of 100 or less students, when
compared with all principals in Tasmania were found to be:
.
younger or older, female, usually in their first posting as a principal, and more
mobile;
.
prone to tensions stemming from the community, including the schools
reputation, between in and out of school demands on their time, and determining
what constitutes success;
.
less likely to initiate new projects, be proud of their school and courageous, or
believe they can make a difference;
.
less likely to see the importance of, make contributions to or see improvement in
staff collaboration, distributive leadership or having high expectations;
.
in schools with lower literacy/numeracy test scores or actively promoting social
justice;
.
in schools that evaluate teaching and learning and involve or communicate their
results to stakeholders, including the school authority; and
.
less likely to believe parents have the right to choose a school for their children.
In conclusion, this study has confirmed contextual demands that result in role conflict
for teaching principals. This conflict arises from the need to provide both strong and
shared leadership, using resources effectively while working collaboratively, being
responsible for decisions made by or with others, and being responsive to local needs
within a framework of system priorities.
Confirming previous research (Wildy and Clarke, 2005) it was found that principals
of small rural schools are mobile, staying for short periods of time, and that a higher
proportion are female. The findings have added to that research by demonstrating that
female principals of the smallest schools are either in a younger or older age group.
Principals of small rural schools of 100 equivalent full time students or less were found
to be twice as likely to report negative relationships with the local community as other
principals. This is an area requiring further research but may confirm Michaels (1996)
and DArcy (1995) research finding that women find it especially difficult taking up the
principalship of rural/remote schools because parent and community members still
view the role of principal through the stereotype of an authoritarian married male. It

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

might also be that the older age group of female principals, whilst being experienced
teachers, find the change to leadership and administration a challenge.
The relative distance between schools may explain why principals of rural schools
of 100 or less students were more opposed than other principals to the idea of parents
having the right to choose a public school for their children. Evidence from the lead
authors experience as a principal of a rural school would suggest that parents are
increasingly exercising this right, particularly if they live in rural areas but work in
larger towns. The availability of childcare is an often quoted reason.
Small rural schools in Tasmania are important local organisations that help develop
and sustain social networks, by building reciprocal relationships with the local
community resulting in their organisational structures being relatively more complex
than larger schools. The school buildings are used as meeting places for members of
the local community, including sporting clubs and local interest groups. Many
Tasmanian rural schools have online access centres, playgroups and even farms
associated with them. The management committee of each of these interest groups will
usually involve the principal of the school. They also have a school council and/or a
parents and friends association. The principal is a member of these groups because
there is nobody to whom they can delegate the responsibility and there is a strong
community expectation they will make themselves available to be an active participant
(Ewington, 1998).
The number of local committee memberships a principal of a small rural school of
100 or less students is the same, if not more, as a principal of an urban school. In
addition, they would be expected to attend the same number of combined cluster and
branch meetings. At the time of the SSPP study, building reciprocal relationships with
the community was further compounded by the demands of the implementation of
system-wide structural changes and the ELs curriculum. Principals were required to
take on increasing numbers of new, centrally mandated roles.
Given these multiple demands, combined with relatively high-teaching loads, it is
little wonder that, for the principals in our study, building reciprocal relationships with
the local community was found to be very difficult, particularly by principals of rural
schools of 100 or less students. The double load phenomenon has been clearly
confirmed. Yet, in areas of Australia where the distance between schools is not large,
one positive alternative to resolving issues facing small schools might be federations
and/or clusters of schools.
Where there were statistically significant differences, principals of small rural
schools of between 101 and 200 students had, in almost all cases, a higher perception
than principals of small urban schools of between 101 and 200 students and principals
of small rural schools of 100 or less students. Principals of small rural schools of
less than 100 students and principals of small urban schools of between 101 and 200
students tended to have similar perceptions. But, where there were differences,
perceptions of principals of small rural schools of 100 or less students were lower than
principals of small urban schools of between 101 and 200 students. In combination,
these results lead us to conclude that factors other than rurality are required to explain
the differences.
The differences may be partly explained by the fact that the socio-economic status
(ENI) of small urban schools of between 101 and 200 students was higher (6.67) than
either small rural schools of 100 or less students (4.94) or small rural schools of between

Successful
school
principalship
559

JEA
46,5

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

560

101 and 200 students (4.43). However, the open-ended responses to our survey lead us
to conclude that the combination of the double load phenomenon and the
increasingly mandated requirements for the implementation of growing amounts of
DoE policy is the more likely explanation. As departmental policy became increasingly
centrally mandated, the misconception of small schools being a scaled down version
of larger schools grew, in particular, for principals of small rural schools of 100 or less
students.
Given the combination of the large turnover in the principalship in Australian
schools over the next five to ten years (Anderson et al., 2007), the high proportion of
small schools (at least one-quarter) and the unlikely change in the traditional career
path involving becoming a principal of a small school and progressively moving to
large schools, our findings add weight to the need for greater research, policy and
practical attention to be paid to small school principalship.
In the research area, there is a need for additional rich, qualitative data gathering,
such as interviews with a selected sample of principals of small schools and/or focus
group discussions with principals of small schools about the special characteristics of
their schools. In the policy and practice area, there is a need to identify and explore
strategies for providing support and provision of pre- and in-service programs for
principals of small schools. This policy and practice needs to focus on the relatively
younger, less experienced, less qualified (including in educational leadership) more
female and more mobile people who tend to occupy the principalship of small schools.
It also needs to take into account the pressures created on principals of small schools
by a combination of the double load phenomenon (teaching and administration), the
difficulties of community relations/leadership and increasingly mandated
requirements for the implementation of central policy.
References
Anderson, M., Gronn, P., Ingvarson, L., Jackson, P., Kleinhenz, E., McKenzie, P., Mulford, B. and
Thornton, N. (2007), OECD Improving School Leadership Activity: Australia Country
Background Report, DEST, Canberra.
Boylan, C. (2005), Training needs of rural school council members, Australian Educational
Researcher, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 49-63.
Clarke, S. (2002), The teaching principal: from the shadowlands to a place in the sun,
Queensland Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 23-37.
DArcy, J. (1995), Musings of a female principal, in Limerick, B. (Ed.), Second Year Book of the
Australian Council for Educational Administration, Hodder Education, Rydalmere.
Dunning, G. (1993), Managing the small primary school: the problem role of the teaching head,
Educational Management & Administration, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 79-89.
Ewington, J. (1998), Parents perceptions of school effectiveness, Leading and Managing, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 32-46.
Forward, B. (1998), Teaching in the Smaller School, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gronn, P. (2007), The attractiveness of the school leaders roles, in Anderson, M. et al. (Eds),
OECD Improving School Leadership Activity: Australia Country Background Report,
DEST, Canberra.
Hatton, E. (2001), School development planning in a small primary school: addressing the
challenge in rural NSW, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 118-33.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

Kilpatrick, S., Johns, S., Mulford, B., Falk, I. and Prescott, L. (2002), More than Education:
Leadership for Rural School-community Partnerships, RIRDC Press, Canberra, available at:
www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/HCC/02-055sum.html
Lashway, L. (2003), Inducting school leaders, ERIC Digest 170 August 2003; Clearinghouse
on Educational Management, available at: http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/
digest170.html (accessed 9 September 2006).
Leithwood, K.A. and Riehl, C. (2003), What do we already know about successful school
leadership?, available at: www.cepa.gse.rutgers.edu/What%20We20Know%20_
long_%202003.pf (accessed 15 May 2007).
Lester, N.C. (2003), Primary leadership in small rural school communities, paper presented at
the Australian Council of Educational Leadership Conference, Sydney, September.
Michael, A. (1996), Issues facing women as principals in rural and remote areas, report
prepared for the Queensland Teachers Union, Brisbane.
Mulford, B. (2007), Overview of research on Australian Educational Leadership 2001-2005,
ACEL Monograph 40, Australian Council for Educational Leaders, Melbourne.
Murdoch, D. and Schiller, J. (2002), Teaching principals in smaller primary schools: their issues,
challenges and concerns, available at: www.aare.edu.au/02pap/mur02145.htm (accessed
8 September 2006).
Nolan, B. (1998), Implementing departmental policy changes in one-teacher schools, Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 262-85.
Southworth, G. (2002), Lessons from successful leadership in small schools, in Leithwood, K.
and Hallinger, P. (Eds), Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and
Administration, Vol. 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.
Springbett, C. (2004), Novice principals in small rural schools: professional relationships for
survival, available at: www.education.murdoch.edu.au/PPL/educ_PPL_pgradlearning.
html (accessed 7 June 2006).
Watt, M. (2007), From essential learnings to Tasmanias curriculum: will this change improve
curriculum reform?, paper presented to the Australian Curriculum Studies Association
Conference, Melbourne, July.
Wildy, H. (2004), Small schools leadership study leading and teaching in small school:
confronting contextual complexity in work practices, available at: www.murdoch.edu.au
(accessed April 2006).
Wildy, H. and Clarke, S. (2005), Leading the small rural school: the case of the novice principal,
Leading and Managing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 43-56.
Corresponding author
John Ewington can be contacted at: john.ewington@education.tas.gov.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Successful
school
principalship
561

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:25 15 October 2014 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. A. Ross Thomas, Bill Mulford. 2012. Tinkering towards Utopia: trying to make sense of my contribution
to the field. Journal of Educational Administration 50:1, 98-124. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Ping-Man Wong. 2011. The village school context and principalship in Hong Kong: what do they
contribute to leadership studies?. School Leadership & Management 31:5, 517-543. [CrossRef]
3. Lawrie Drysdale. 2011. Introduction. Leadership and Policy in Schools 10:4, 371-374. [CrossRef]
4. Stephen Dinham, Michelle Anderson, Brian Caldwell, Paul Weldon. 2011. Breakthroughs in school
leadership development in Australia. School Leadership & Management 31:2, 139-154. [CrossRef]
5. Petros Pashiardis, Stefan Brauckmann, Bill Mulford, Halia Silins. 2011. Revised models and
conceptualisation of successful school principalship for improved student outcomes. International Journal
of Educational Management 25:1, 61-82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Karen S. Crum, Whitney H. Sherman, Steve Myran. 2010. Best practices of successful elementary school
leaders. Journal of Educational Administration 48:1, 48-63. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Rose M. Ylimaki, David Gurr, Lawrie Drysdale, Jeffrey V. BennettSuccessful school principals in Australia
and the US: Findings from an international study 273-301. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]