School principals’ perceptions of their roles and responsibilities in the city of Rzeszów and Atlanta area
Tak Cheung Chan
Educational Leadership, Kennesaw State University
Binbin Jiang
Division of Global Affairs, Kennesaw State University
Sławomir Rębisz
Faculty of Education, University of Rzeszów*
By comparing the roles and responsibilities of principals from the city of Rzeszow (Poland) and the Atlanta area (Georgia, U.S.A.), this study contributes to a better understanding of school leadership in the two countries. Participating principals included 148 from the United States of America, and 74 from Poland.
A researcher designed a Likert-scale questionnaire on the roles and responsibilities of principals in seven leadership areas: character, professional knowledge, professional skills, administrative style, administrative duties, personnel management, and student affairs management. This was supplemented by a survey of three open-ended questions on the principals’ major responsibilities, challenges, and fulfillment. The mul- tivariate analysis of covariance was used for data analyses with gender and age as control covariates. The results of the data analysis indicated significant differences between Poland and the United States in overall responses and three leadership areas: principals’ knowledge, styles, and duties.
Keywords: comparative education; Polish education; principalship; school leadership; U.S. education.
© Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych issn: 0239-6858
* Adres: ul. Ks. Jałowego 24, 35-010 Rzeszów.
E-mail: rebiszuniv@poczta.onet.pl
local situations typical of their communi- ties (Hallinger, 2004; Marzano, Waters and McNulty, 2005; Michalak, 2011).
The education arena in Poland has undergone significant changes in recent years. Madalińska-Michalak (2016, p. 161) provided a concise and vivid description as follows:
The Polish community and other former so- cialist states which broke with the old regime
T
he roles and responsibilities of school principals in many countries of the world have a great deal in common irre- spective of cultural and political differences (House and Javidan, 2004). School princi- pals worldwide have been recognized as an important component contributing to the overall achievement of schools but they are under pressure to deal with many uniqueand followed the path of democratization and decommunization have witnessed massive social, economic and political changes. These dramatic changes stimulated policy mak- ers and citizens to examine more deeply the goals and purposes of the educational system in Poland. […] Emerging new demands have led to analyses of the governance of schools, principals’ roles and responsibilities.
In the United States of America, the responsibility of education falls mainly on the individual state and local governments with limited support from the federal gov- ernment. Since the enactment of the Elemen- tary and Secondary Education Act (1965) and the No Child Left Behind Act (2002), there has been increased federal involvement in education in terms of grants and man- dates. As a result, there have been calls for increased educational accountability placing a great amount of pressure on school prin- cipals to demonstrate evidence of academic improvement.
Current literature has shown that school principals in Poland and the United States are working to meet demands from many directions, namely, strategic planning, pupil instruction, budgeting, laws and regulations, human resource management, parents and communities, and other miscellaneous school business (Leithwood, 2007; Marzano et al., 2005; Michalak, 2011; Szymański, 2001). They work diligently toward attain- ing their professional goals and meeting all the challenges from different political, social and cultural situations. This study is aimed at comparing the self-perceptions of school principals of Poland and the United States to understand how they perceive their roles and responsibilities and how their schools are operated under their leadership.
Conceptual framework
School principals’ roles and responsibili- ties in the United States were well developed
and specified in the Educational Leadership Constituent Council Standards. Accord- ing to these standards, principals should have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to promote the success of all students by:
(1) facilitating the development, articula- tion, implementation, and stewardship of a school’s vision of learning; (2) promoting a positive school culture, providing an effec- tive instructional program, applying best practice to student learning, and designing comprehensive professional growth plans for staff; (3) managing the organization, opera- tions, and resources in a way that promotes a safe, efficient, and effective learning envi- ronment; (4) collaborating with families and other community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources; (5) acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner; and (6) understanding, respond- ing to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural con- text (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2002).
To become a school principal in the United States, individuals must possess a graduate academic degree in educational leadership or administration, have two to three years of experiences as a licensed teacher, and passed the state qualifying examination of educational leadership in the state they serve. Some school principals even have higher academic degrees, such as Educational Specialist and Doctorate (Fiar- man, 2015; McKay, 2017).
In recent years, studies of school prin- cipalship in the U.S. have been focused on instructional leadership to include leadership in curriculum development, program design, instruction delivery and outcome assessment (Barth, 1990; Blasé and Blasé, 2000; Hal- linger, 2003; Smith and Andrews, 1989). The findings of these studies have provided addi- tional evidence of school principals’ impact on student achievement and overall school
success. Researchers have also demonstrated a strong connection between high-quality principals and high-performing schools (Dhuey and Smith, 2014; Spiro, 2013; Yang, 2014). But additional mandates and respon- sibilities also pressure school leaders to face the increased demands of accountability for student achievement (Barnett, Shoho and Oleszewski, 2012).
U.S. school districts are experiencing a shortage of school principals because many educators who have pursued principal cer- tification have not pursued principal posi- tions (Styron and Styron, 2013). In deciding to assume principalship, applicants must consider the compensation in terms of sal- ary, benefits and the authority of the position before making a commitment to it (Retelle, 2010). In Poland, a school principal is a rep- resentative of the education administration and is responsible for performing duties resulting from national educational policy.
“One can say that the principal is responsi- ble for nearly everything” (Michalak, 2011, p.
260). However, according to Więsław (2011), a Polish school principal is only the head of an organization and has very limited power.
Many strategic and financial decisions relat- ing to a school have been assumed by the rel- evant self-governing boards.
A Polish principal’s role in managing a public school was described by Bednarska- Wnuk (2009) as a business manager. She claimed that changes in the Polish education system contribute to changing the principal’s role with features that are characteristic of a business organization. Bednarska-Wnuk’s point of view was reflecting earlier in a proc- lamation by Żak (2007) that most principals concentrate mainly on current matters that are characteristic of a business manager who cares only about the organization’s survival in a changing environment.
A Polish school leadership study by Mazurkiewicz (2012) showed that the school director was a strong person with
either the vision and ability to win others over or had a position of authority. The findings of Mazurkiewicz’s study concur with those of Czarnecki (2006), that school principals assumed a significant portion of administrative responsibilities while relieving their faculty to do other instruc- tional work.
The basic qualifications of Polish school principals are: (a) possession of a M.A.
degree with teaching endorsement as well as the qualification to assume a teaching posi- tion; (b) graduation from postgraduate stud- ies in management or a qualifying course in the management of education, and at least five years experience as a licensed teacher or five years of didactic experience as an aca- demic teacher, with a positive evaluation of his/her work as a licensed teacher (at least grade B) for the last five years (Jeżowski and Madalińska-Michalak, 2015).
An international comparison of school principals’ roles and responsibilities was performed by McAdams (1998) and included England, Germany, Denmark, Japan, and the United States. Results showed that U.S. principals had a more frenetic work day than their international colleagues. In their study of Russia, China, and Ireland, Flanary and Terehoff (2000) claimed that effective principals must deal with the challenges arising from global changes in economics, politics, and demography. To understand the successful models of international school leadership, Johnson, Moller, Jacobson and Wong (2008) studied the characteristics and practices of principalship of eight coun- tries (Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, England, Norway, Sweden and the United States). They found more similarities than differences in school leadership practices among these countries.
The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) published by the OECD (2013) provided details about the increas- ingly significant roles of school principals
and their responsibilities in 38 countries.
Results of the study indicated that about 60%
of principals spent 30–54% of their time on administrative work. In working with teach- ers on instructional improvement, 70% of the principals reported that this took 17–30% of their time. Most of the principals indicated that they used student performance evalua- tion results to develop school goals and aca- demic programs.
Specifically comparing the abilities of school principals between Poland and the United States, Litchka (2015) solicited data on the perceptions of 131 teachers from Poland and 315 teachers from the United States. Five leadership practices were exam- ined: model the way; inspire a shared vision;
challenge the process; enable others to act, and encourage the heart. Results of the study indicated that teachers from Poland rated their principals significantly higher than teachers in the United States in each of the five practices.
Purpose of the study
Studies on the comparison of school principalship between Poland and the United States are scarce. Litchka’s compar- ative study of school principalship was only performed using the perceptions of teachers.
A more holistic and comprehensive compar- ison of principalship in these two countries is needed. The purpose of this study was to examine if the roles and responsibilities of school principals in Poland significantly dif- fered from those of the United States. The roles and responsibilities of school principals were examined in seven leadership areas:
character, professional knowledge, profes- sional skills, administrative style, adminis- trative duties, personnel management, and student affairs management. The results of this study can contribute to a better under- standing of how schools are administered in Poland and the United States.
Research questions
The four major research questions in this study are:
■How do principals in Poland perceive their roles and responsibilities in schools?
■How do principals in the U.S. perceive their roles and responsibilities in schools?
■How do the roles and responsibilities of school principals in Poland compare to those of school principals in the U.S.?
■Do principals’ gender and age make any difference in their responses to the sur- vey questions on the principals’ roles and responsibilities in Poland and the U.S.?
Methodology Design
This study took a descriptive design with the use of survey questionnaires. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through soliciting responses by surveying current school principals located in Poland and the United States. A mixed research method uti- lized for this study may be defined as “the collection or analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study in which the data are collected concurrently or sequen- tially, are given a priority, and involve the integration of the data at one or more stages in the process of research” (Creswell, Plano, Clark, Gutmann and Hanson, 2003, p. 212).
Participants
One hundred and forty eight out of the two hundred and twenty (67.3%) randomly selected school principals in the Atlanta area of the State of Georgia, U.S.A. participated in this study. Random selection was made by proportion of the number of elementary, middle and high schools in Atlanta area. In Poland, seventy-four (74%) of the one hundred randomly sampled school principals from the neighborhood of Rzeszow City responded to the invitations to participation in the study.
Principal participation in this study was vol- untary for both the Polish and U.S. school principals. The authors have no control over the number of principals who were willing to respond to the survey instrument.
Instrumentation
A 30-item Likert-scale questionnaire was designed by the researchers to survey school principals in Poland and the United States.
It was designed to cover principals’ roles and responsibilities in seven leadership areas:
character, professional knowledge, profes- sional skills, administrative style, adminis- trative duties, personnel management, and student affairs management. The 30 items of the survey instrument were derived from the current literature on school principal- ship (AASA, 2017; Cisler and Bruce, 2013;
National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2002).
The instrument was tested for validity through a panel of ten school principals in the United States, who critically reviewed its contents, format, and language. The test and retest reliability coefficient was found to be 0.88 and the internal consistency of the instrument was tested by using the Cronbach alpha test (overall alpha = 0.85). Both the reliability coefficient and the overall alpha indicated acceptable levels of a reliable sur- vey instrument.
In addition, a qualitative part with three open-ended questions was also constructed to solicit principals’ perceptions on their major responsibilities, their challenges, and fulfillment in their position as school principal.
The instrument, both the quantitative and qualitative parts, was first developed in the English language. It was then trans- lated into Polish by one of the authors.
A Polish scholar with extensive English and Polish language experience reviewed the Pol- ish version of the instrument for fluency and accuracy. The resulting survey instruments
of both the English and Polish versions have the unique properties of a high quality meas- urement scale.
Data analysis
Quantitative data collected from the survey were analyzed in general and by the subsets of character, professional knowledge, professional skills, administrative style, administrative duties, personnel manage- ment, and student affairs management to determine the extent of the school princi- pals’ responses in Poland and the United States. Responses from the school princi- pals of Poland and the United States were compared by using multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) with gender and age as covariates. The impact of gender and age on school principals’ responses was also examined by using the one-way analysis of variance. A parallel comparison of quali- tative data collected from the survey was based on answers to the three open-ended questions. Observations were made of con- sistencies in the themes and patterns that prevailed among the principals’ responses.
Because more time was required to respond to the qualitative questions, only one-third of the participants responding to the quantita- tive questions continued with the qualitative questions. Many qualitative responses were simple and concise. Therefore, in the quali- tative data analysis, only the most represent- ative responses were quoted to indicate the general tendencies of the responses.
Findings Demographic analyses
An analysis of the demographic data of Polish principals showed that a total of 74 principals responded to the survey with 56.8% of them males and 43.2% females.
Most of the principals (59.5%) were aged between 51 and 60. Most of them (83.8%) have been in education for more than twenty
years. Of all the schools they managed, 21.6%
were elementary schools, 16.2% were middle schools, 29.7% were high schools and 32.4%
were schools of mixed grades. The U.S. prin- cipals’ demographics show that 59.4% of the participants were males and 40.6% were females. Most of the principals (59%) were aged between 41 and 50. Approximately 69.2% of the principals had from 5 to 10 years of education experience. The school princi- pals were from elementary schools (51.9%), middle schools (29.1%) and high schools (19%; Table 1).
Quantitative data analysis Descriptive statistics
The responses of the school principals were categorized into seven subtitles and the total average for the calculation. Out of the five-point scale, the Polish principals attained 4.59 in Character, 3.95 in Knowl- edge, 4.49 in Skills, 4.31 in Style, 4.07 in Table 1
Demographics of school principals (in %) Demographics Category Poland United
States
Gender Male 56.8 59.4
Female 43.2 40.6
Age
21–30 2.7 0.7
31–40 13.5 11.1
41–50 16.2 59.0
51–60 59.5 25.7
61+ 8.1 3.5
School level
Elementary 21.6 51.9
Middle 16.2 29.1
High 29.7 19.0
Mixed 32.4 0.0
Years in education
1–5 0.0 48.9
6–10 8.1 20.3
11–15 8.1 6.0
16–20 0.0 23.3
20+ 83.8 1.5
Table 2
Descriptive statistics – means of principals’ roles and responsibilities Principals’ roles and
responsibilities Country Mean sd Mean difference (Poland–U.S.) N
Character Poland 4.59 0.77 -0.07 74
U.S. 4.67 0.47 129
Knowledge Poland 3.95 0.38
-0.16 74
U.S. 4.11 0.50 129
Skills Poland 4.49 0.44
0.00 74
U.S. 4.49 0.40 129
Style Poland 4.31 0.50 -0.12 74
U.S. 4.43 0.52 129
Duties Poland 4.07 0.42 -0.48 74
U.S. 4.55 0.34 129
Personnel Poland 4.33 0.42
-0.03 74
U.S. 4.36 0.50 129
Student affairs Poland 4.28 0.52
-0.01 74
U.S. 4.29 0.50 129
Total average Poland 4.29 0.37 -0.12 74
U.S. 4.41 0.29 129
Duties, 4.33 in Personnel and 4.28 in Stu- dent affairs. All of their responses gave a total average of 4.29. The results of the U.S. prin- cipals responses indicated 4.67 in Charac- ter, 4.11 in Knowledge, 4.49 in Skills, 4.43 in Style, 4.55 in Duties, 4.36 in Personnel and 4.29 in Student affairs. Their total responses had an average of 4.41 (Table 2).
Multivariate analysis of covariance:
multivariate tests
The multivariate analysis of variance (MANCOVA) was used to examine if there was any significant difference in the percep- tions of school principals between Poland and the United States. Gender and age were selected as covariates based on the litera- ture review (Datnow, 1998; Fullan, 2001;
Williams and Dikes, 2015) to control the possible effect these factors may have on the perceptions of school principals. In con- ducting a one-way MANCOVA, the result of Pillai’s trace test reveals that there was a significant difference in the responses of the school principals between Poland and the United States with F(74, 148) = 19.64; p =
= 0.000 and Pillai’s trace value 0.41 (Table 3).
In testing for Character’s averages as the dependent variable, the results indicated that the mean square has an average of 0.80.
No statistical difference existed between the self-perceptions of Polish and U.S. princi- pals in the function of Character after con- trolling for the possible effect of gender and age (F = 2.33; p = 0.128; Table 4). In testing for Knowledge’s averages as the dependent
variable, the results indicated that the mean square has an average of 1.53. A statistically significant difference existed between the self-perceptions of Polish and U.S. prin- cipals in the function of Knowledge after controlling for the possible effect of gender and age (F = 7.27; p = 0.008). In testing for Skill’s averages as the dependent variable, the results indicated that the mean square has an average of .042. A statistical differ- ence did not exist between the self-percep- tions of Polish and U.S. principals in the function of Skill after controlling for the possible effect of gender and age (F = 0.24;
p = 0.623). In testing for Style’s averages as the dependent variable, the results indicated that the mean square has an average of 1.16.
A statistically significant difference existed between the self-perceptions of Polish and U.S. principals in the function of Style after controlling for the possible effect of gen- der and age (F = 4.50; p = 0.035). In testing for Duties’ averages as the dependent var- iable, the results indicated that the mean square has an average of 11.43. A statisti- cally significant difference existed between the self-perceptions of Polish and U.S. prin- cipals in the function of Duties after con- trolling for the possible effect of gender and age (F = 84.56; p = 0.000). In testing for Per- sonnel’s averages as the dependent variable, the results indicated that the mean square has an average of 0.25. No statistical differ- ence existed between the self-perceptions of Polish and U.S. principals in the func- tion of Personnel after controlling for the
Table 3
Multivariate analysis of covariance: Pillai’s trace for the multivariate tests
Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Significance
Intercept 0.87 191.84 7.000 193.00 0.00
Gender 0.03 0.72 7.000 193.00 0.65
Age 0.06 1.65 7.000 193.00 0.12
Country 0.42 19.64 7.000 193.00 0.00
Table 4
Multivariate analysis of covariance: tests of between-subjects effects Source Dependent variable Type III sum
of squares df Mean
square F Significance
Corrected model
Character 3.54 3 1.18 3.44 0.02
Knowledge 1.90 3 0.63 3.02 0.03
Skill 0.88 3 0.29 1.70 0.17
Style 1.89 3 0.63 2.44 0.06
Duties 11.45 3 3.82 28.24 0.00
Personnel 1.75 3 0.58 2.67 0.05
Student affairs 1.29 3 0.43 1.71 0.17
Total average 1.91 3 0.64 6.30 0.00
Intercept
Character 126.41 1 126.41 368.71 0.00
Knowledge 110.21 1 110.21 524.41 0.00
Skill 137.33 1 137.33 794.16 0.00
Style 127.12 1 127.12 492.52 0.00
Duties 130.41 1 130.41 964.77 0.00
Personnel 121.12 1 121.12 555.12 0.00
Student affairs 127.01 1 127.01 503.32 0.00
Total average 125.54 1 125.54 1243.32 0.00
Gender
Character 0.82 1 0.82 2.38 0.12
Knowledge 0.23 1 0.23 1.11 0.29
Skill 0.09 1 0.09 0.55 0.46
Style 0.06 1 0.58 0.22 0.64
Duties 0.05 1 0.05 0.34 0.56
Personnel 0.06 1 0.06 0.29 0.59
Student affairs 0.09 1 0.09 0.38 0.54
Total average 0.09 1 0.09 0.89 0.35
Age
Character 2.22 1 2.22 6.46 0.01
Knowledge 0.43 1 0.43 2.03 0.16
Skill 0.73 1 0.73 4.25 0.04
Style 1.07 1 1.07 4.15 0.04
Duties 0.45 1 0.45 3.36 0.07
Personnel 1.58 1 1.58 7.24 0.01
Student affairs 1.24 1 1.24 4.90 0.03
Total average 1.02 1 1.02 10.12 0.00
Country
Character 0.80 1 0.80 2.33 0.13
Knowledge 1.53 1 1.53 7.27 0.01
Skill 0.04 1 0.04 0.24 0.62
Style 1.16 1 1.16 4.50 0.03
Duties 11.43 1 11.43 84.56 0.00
Personnel 0.22 1 0.22 1.17 0.28
Student affairs 0.11 1 0.11 0.42 0.52
Total average 1.19 1 1.19 11.75 0.00
possible effect of gender and age (F = 1.17;
p = 0.281). In testing for Student sffairs’
averages as the dependent variable, the results indicated that the mean square has an average of 0.11. No statistical difference existed between the self-perceptions of Pol- ish and U.S. principals in the function of Student affairs after controlling for the pos- sible effect of gender and age (F = 0.42; p =
= 0.518). In testing for the total averages as the dependent variable, the results indicated that the mean square has an average of 1.19.
A statistically significant difference existed between the self-perceptions of Polish and U.S. principals in the function of total after
controlling for the possible effect of gender and age (F = 11.75; p = 0.001).
Analysis of variance: differences in gender and age
When profiles of male principals were compared with those of female principals in Poland, no significant difference was found (F = 0.68; p > 0.05). However, the same comparison yielded significant differences between male and female principals in the United States. The overall average pro- files of male principals were significantly different from female principals (F = 7.35;
p = 0.008). In almost all the comparisons in Table 5
One way analysis of variance – Polish principals’ total average responses by gender and age
Demographics Variance Sum of squares df Mean square F
Gender Between groups 0.10 1 0.10 0.68
Within groups 10.82 73 0.15
Age Between groups 1.90 4 0.47 3.63*
Within groups 9.02 70 0.13
*p < 0.05.
Table 6
One way analysis of variance (post hoc tests) – Polish principals’ total average responses by age*
Category Age group(a) Mean difference se Significance
Age
(1)–(3) -0.60 0.28 0.03
(1)–(4) -0.79 0.26 0.00
(1)–(5) -0.76 0.29 0.01
*Only statistics of comparisons with significant differences are shown.
(a) Age groups: (1) = 21–30; (2) = 31–40; (3) = 41–50; (4) = 51–60; (5) = 61–70.
Table 7
One way analysis of variance – U.S. principals’ total average responses by gender and age
Demographics Variance Sum of Squares df Mean square F
Gender Between groups 0.60 1 0.60 7.35*
Within groups 10.57 129 0.08
Age Between groups 0.41 4 0.10 1.17
Within groups 11.00 127 0.09
*p < 0.05.
the United States, the profiles were depicted more positively in favor of female princi- pals. In the age comparison, no significant difference was detected among various age groups of U. S. principals (F = 1.17;
p > 0.05). In Poland, the average of princi- pals’ responses was found to be significantly different by age at the 0.05 level (F = 3.63;
p < 0.05) in favor of the age groups of 41–50 and 51–60-year old principals (Tables 5–7).
Qualitative data analysis
Principals’ major responsibilities
The analysis of qualitative data indi- cated that there were significant differences between the principals of Poland and the United States in their identification of major responsibilities. Principals in the United States focused on academic progress and safety of students as their major responsibil- ities. As stated by one of the U.S. principals:
The major responsibility of the school prin- cipal is to see that the school runs efficiently.
The focus has to be on student achievement.
The safety of the students, faculty, and staff is also a priority.
Another U.S. principal added:
The major responsibility of a school leader is quite simple: to provide a SAFE, nurturing, and accepting environment in which students can make effective academic, emotional, and social progress.
Another U.S. principal also said:
Students can only learn in a safe environment.
They will perform better when they feel safe.
School safety is the priority concern of a school principal.
A principal’s major responsibilities as perceived by Polish principals were efficient school management, student safety and stu- dent learning outcomes. A Polish principal’s response was quoted as:
A school principal is responsible for matters relating to the school’s organization and effi- cient operation.
Another Polish school principal reacted:
The principal is responsible for every part of the school with a focus on student education.
Additionally, as many as 15 Polish princi- pals, like U.S. principals, cited school safety as a major concern. They claimed that their major responsibility is to create a safe school environment for teachers and students.
Furthermore, student learning outcomes were claimed by Polish principals to be a major responsibility of the school principal.
Their statements are cited as follows:
Ensuring student learning outcomes and the results of the matriculation examination are the major responsibilities of a school principal.
My main responsibility is to prepare my stu- dents to enable them for further education or work.
In summary, school principals in both countries identified the maintenance of school safety as their primary responsibil- ity. Of course, they considered their instruc- tional responsibility as among one of the most critical. Additionally, they understood that being the leader of the school, they assumed sole responsibility for anything that happened at school.
Principals’ challenges
In response to the challenges they were facing, school principals in Poland and the United States agreed on personnel issues as their common challenges. This was exempli- fied by the responses of two Polish principals as follows:
Providing support for teachers and employees through the evaluation of their teaching and working effectiveness is a challenge. It has to be fair to provide encouragement and at the same time pinpoint areas of improvement.
A unique challenge is to work with teachers to motivate them to deliver their classes in an interesting manner and to utilize modern technology.
In the same category of personnel issues, U.S. principals reflected their opinions in the following statements:
Perhaps, the biggest challenge to a veter- an principal is to maintain the high level of faculty enthusiasm and energy needed to be effective.
I believe that hiring and retaining excellent teachers is a major challenge.
Faculty issues are tremendous: high turno- ver rates; insufficient training, retaining good teachers and certification issues. Only excellent teachers could result in excellent student per- formance. Retain your best teachers in school.
At the same time, principals from Poland and the United States identified challenges that were unique to them. U.S. principals perceived challenges as issues associated with meeting the Academic Yearly Progress of students. Some of their responses can be seen in the following quotations:
Academic achievement (gains) in all sub- groups (students with disabilities) as pertain- ing to AYP is the real challenge.
No Child Left Behind is imposing unreason- able mandates and expectations. These laws have the effect of setting up public education for failure.
Principals are getting pounded with stand- ardized testing and AYP pressures.
Accountability movement has put princi- pals under pressure for improved student achievement.
Providing quality assurance that boys and girls are receiving excellent instruction that meets their unique needs is a constant requirement for a principal to monitor and facilitate.
On the other hand, Polish principals per- ceived their unique challenges as meeting the demands of continuously changing
regulations and the changing expectations of the education market. Some of the com- plaints expressed by Polish principals are shown by the following remarks:
To operate the school effectively with a con- tinuous (not necessarily logical) change of laws is definitely a challenge to current school principals.
Finding one’s way through the jungle of continually changing regulations is not an easy job for a school principal who intends to update their school to current regulatory requirements.
To adjust the education programs of the school to meet the demands of changing em- ployment is a real challenge.
The main challenge of a school principal is to create a school that will measure up to the demands of social needs in face of changing reality.
In summary, principals in Poland and the United States identified personnel issues as their common challenge. The unique chal- lenge to Polish principals was the continually changing educational regulations and expec- tations. For U.S. principals, the challenge was the pressure to work hard to meet the demand of the student academic yearly progress.
Fulfillment of school principals
When asked about the fulfillment of a school principal’s job, school principals in Poland and the United States shared the same opinion. Most of them highlighted their greatest fulfillment in seeing student achievement, working with professional fac- ulty and staff, and gaining community sup- port. Principals in the United States had the following to say:
The principal can be in a position that estab- lishes the essential leadership needed to move a school forward. I have found in my six years as a principal that the good people of a com- munity are extremely supportive of a positive and effective principal.
The fulfillment is spending time with stu- dents, seeing them mature and grow academ- ically, socially, emotionally and physically.
When a principal knows that a child is bet- ter prepared to live in society as a useful, law-abiding and productive citizen because of experiences the child had in school, that principal should take pride in a job well done.
It is satisfying to see teachers that you hire really do a good job and become effective educators.
Student success is my success.
Making a school and its faculty sustainable;
problem solving; and realizing an increase in student achievement scores are among the most fulfilling items.
Polish principals were also very happy when their students achieved, faculty advanced, and school goals were attained.
Their excitement can be seen in the following citations:
The principal finds the fulfillment of his/her work in establishing good contact with stu- dents and their self-governing body.
When I meet with former school graduates, I enjoy hearing their success stories after school.
Good relationships with teachers build school success.
One of my fulfillment in my job as a school principal is to help teachers meet their pro- fessional goals.
It is exciting to see that the school has earned a good name with the development of various aspects of student life.
Seeing that the school reaches its previously set goals and objectives and that the concept of the school is well implemented.
In summary, school principals in both countries considered their greatest fulfill- ment in their job in three major areas. They were very happy to witness their students’
success in completing their schooling.
Additionally, it fulfilled the principals’ job satisfaction to see that teachers in their school were growing professionally under their care. On top of that, principals consid- ered it a great achievement that the school accomplished its educational goals with community support.
Discussion
As a result of the data analysis, the follow- ing observations are made in comparing the roles and responsibilities of school principals in Poland and the United States:
First, it is obvious that U.S. principal participants in this study were on average younger than those in Poland. Most of the Polish principals (59.5%) were aged between 51 and 60 years, while most of the U.S. prin- cipals (59%) belonged to the 41 to 50 age group. It follows that most of the Polish principals (83.8%) have more years of edu- cation experience (over 20 years) than the U.S. principals.
Second, it is interesting to find that out of the seven areas of principal roles and responsibilities, both Polish and U.S. prin- cipals rated Character the highest (Poland:
4.59; U.S.: 4.67). At the same time, they all rated Knowledge the lowest (Poland:
3.95; U.S.: 4.11). What this means is that principals in Poland and the United States strongly believed in holding to high ethi- cal standards in their daily performance as school principal. Principals in both coun- tries also saw the need for continuously updating their professional knowledge to keep themselves in the forefront of world developments.
Third, in all seven areas of principal roles and responsibilities, U.S. principals rated themselves higher than the Polish principals except in Skills which appeared to be almost equal. The largest range (-0.48) was in the performance of their duties. U.S. principals seem to be involved more extensively than
Polish principals in the daily operation of their schools.
Fourth, significant differences in the roles and responsibilities of school principals between Poland and the United States seem to appear in the areas of Knowledge, Styles, Duties and the overall average. However, despite the significant differences, they all worked in the same positive direction in the delivery of their daily responsibilities.
Fifth, the findings of this study indicate that school principals have many roles and responsibilities regardless of the cultural and political differences between the two countries. These findings are reflective of the research outcomes of Czarnecki (2006), Hallinger (2003), Mazurkiewicz (2012) and Michalak (2011) who confirmed that school principals were heavily burdened with administrative responsibilities.
Sixth, contrary to Litchka’s study (2015), in which teachers in Poland rated their school principals higher than the teachers in the United States, the findings of this study show that school principals in the U.S. rated themselves higher on average than principals in Poland.
Seventh, school principals in both Poland and the United States reported student safety and their academic achievement as the two highest goals that they have to attain in their daily work. The pressures were from both social and political orientations.
Principals from both countries confirmed that ensuring student safety and improv- ing student achievement were their major responsibilities.
Eighth, U.S. school principals identified working with teachers as the major challenge in their jobs. They worked hard to resolve issues with teacher motivation, teacher retention, teacher professional development and teacher certification. Polish principals saw their greatest challenges as meeting the demands of continuously changing regula- tions and the changing expectations of the
education market. U.S. principals were under the pressure to achieve student annual aca- demic progress. School principals in both countries were striving to meet their indi- vidual challenges to attain their student achievement goals.
Ninth, principals of both Poland and the United States considered their professional fulfillment as witnessing positive student academic, social, emotional and physical development. They also took pride in the professional growth of teachers under their continuous support. Additionally, school principals considered it a great accomplish- ment to be able to meet their established school goals with community support.
Tenth, the analysis of the qualitative data has yielded very meaningful findings in principals’ perceptions of student achieve- ment in both countries. The findings clearly point to enhancing student achievement as their major responsibility. U.S. principals even claimed that they were working under pressure to demonstrate improved student test scores. Polish principals complained that frequent regulation changes diverted their attention from instructional lead- ership. Principals of both countries were exultant when witnessing the success of their students. The qualitative findings on principals’ perception on student achieve- ment echo the quantitative outcomes that principals focus much attention to person- nel matters, particularly to working with teachers in professional development to ensure their success in classroom teach- ing. They truly believe that higher student achievement is a result of better qualified teachers.
Limitations
This study is limited in the selection of school principals from the Atlanta area, Geor- gia in the U.S. and school principals from the city of Rzeszów, Poland. Any comparison of principals’ roles and responsibilities between
Poland and the United States in this study can only be interpreted with reference to these geographical areas.
Even though the random sampling method was used in Poland and the United States to identify and invite school princi- pals to participate in the study, participation in this research project was voluntary. The researchers had no control over the number of principals responding, but had to accept all the returned survey forms.
The findings of this study is limited to the school sizes of Poland and the United States. Most of the schools in Poland are comparatively smaller. U.S. elementary schools average from 500–1200 students, middle schools from 800–1500 students and high schools from 1000–2500 students.
Principals in large schools have added com- plex responsibilities.
The comparative perspective of this study between principals of Poland and the United States is also limited to the fact that most Polish principals carry teaching responsibilities in addition to their assigned administrative roles. Principals in the United States are strictly school leaders with full-time positions in the administration of their schools.
Implications
School principals in Poland and the United States have established similar school goals to be attained. At the same time, they confront similar problems in the operation of their schools. Some of their daily challenges include school safety, student achievement, personnel problems, budgetary constraints, and curriculum design issues. As Poland is drawing closer to the western world, the edu- cation channel of communication between Poland and the United States has opened.
The findings of this study shed new lights on the collaborative effort of planning for international leadership preparation pro- grams between the two countries.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to exam- ine the roles and responsibilities of school principals in Poland and the United States.
Through a comparative approach, the find- ings of this study disclosed that school prin- cipals in both countries have demonstrated their professional wisdom by recognizing character as being the most significant role of an educational leader. Principals in both countries clearly identified their major responsibilities in establishing goals of ensuring student safety and enhancing stu- dent achievement. Because of social, cultural and political differences, the principals of the two countries confront different challenges.
The findings of this study help the princi- pals of these two countries understand the difficulties their counterparts are facing in operating school and how these difficulties are resolved. This study served as a bridge of communication among school principals of the two countries. Not only do they realize the importance of their roles and responsi- bilities, but they are also more aware of the professional accountability they will have to confront. Future research on principalship between Poland and the United States can focus on the unique challenges of school administration by school level. Educators from both countries have much to learn from one another.
Literature
American Association of School Administrators (2017). Code of ethics: AASA’s statement of ethics for educational leaders. Alexandria: American Association of School Administrators.
Barnett, B. G., Shoho, A. R. and Oleszewski, A. M.
(2012). The job realities of beginning and experi- enced assistant principals. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(1), 92–128. doi:10.1080/15700763 .2011.611924
Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bednarska-Wnuk, I. (2009). Rola dyrektora w zarzą- dzaniu szkołą publiczną. Łódź: Uniwersytet Łódzki.
Blasé, J. and Blasé, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: teachers’ perspective on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 130–141.
Cisler, A. and Bruce, M. A, (2013). Principals: what are their roles and responsibilities? Journal of School Counselling, 11(10), 1–27.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L.
and Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed meth- ods research designs. In A. Tashakkori and C. Ted- dlie (eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Czarnecki, J. S. (2006). Architektura dla lidera. In J. M. Michalak (ed.), Przywództwo w szkole (pp.
19–36). Kraków: Impuls.
Datnow, A. (1998). The gender politics of educational change. London: Falmer Press.
Dhuey, E. and Smith, J. (2014). How important are school principals in the production of student achievement? Canadian Journal of Economics/
Revue canadienne d’économique, 47(2), 634–663 Elementary and Secondary Education (Act of 1965.
P.L. 89–100; and 79 Stat. 27 (1965).
Fiarman, S. E. (2015). Becoming a school principal:
learning to lead, leading to learn. Cambridge: Har- vard Education Press.
Flanary, R. A. and Terehoff, I. I. (2000). The power of leadership in a global environment. NASSP Bul- letin, 84(617), 44–50.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. London: Routledge
Hallinger, P. (2003). Two decades of ferment in school leadership development in retrospect: 1980–2000.
In P. Hallinger (ed.), Reshaping the landscape of school leadership development: a global perspective (pp. 3–22). Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Hallinger, P. (2004). Leading educational change:
reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–351.
House, R. and Javidan, M. (2004). Overview of GLOBE. In House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., Gupta, V. (eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 9–28). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Jeżowski, A. and Madalińska-Michalak, J. (2015).
Dyrektor szkoły – koncepcje i wyzwania: między teorią a praktyką. Warszawa: Ośrodek Rozwoju Edukacji.
Johnson, L., Moller, J., Jacobson, S. and Wong, K. (2008). Cross-national comparisons in the international successful school principalship proj- ect (ISSPP). Scandianavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(4), 407–422.
Leithwood, K. (2007). Successful leadership in times of change: an international perspective. Netherlands:
Springer International Publishing.
Litchka, P. (2015). An examination of school prin- cipal leadership abilities as perceived by teachers in Poland and the United States. Leadership and Policy Quarterly, 4(1), 1–21.
Madalińska-Michalak, J. M. (2016). Poland: contem- porary research on school principals and leader- ship. In H. Arlestig, Ch. Day and O. Johansson (eds.), A decade of research on school principals (pp. 161–184). Switzerland: Springer.
Marzano, R., Waters, T. and McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mazurkiewicz, G. (2012). Edukacja i przywództwo.
Modele mentalne jako bariery rozwoju. Kraków:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
McAdams, R. P. (1998). The principalship: an interna- tional perspective. Principal, 77(3), 10–12, 14, 16.
McKay, D. R. (2017). Your career as a school princi- pal. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/
principal-career-information-526056
Michalak, J. M. (2011). Research on principals in Poland. In O. Johansson (ed.), Rektor-En For- skningsoversikt 2000–2010 (pp. 255–278). Stock- holm: Vletenskapsradet.
National Policy Board for Educational Administra- tion (2002). Standards for advanced programs in educational leadership. Reston: National Policy Board for Educational Administration.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L.
No. 107–110, and 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2014). The importance of school leadership. In: TALIS 2013 results: an internatio- nal perspective on teaching and learning. Retrie- ved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/
talis-2013-results/the-importance-of-school- -leadership_9789264196261-6-en
Retelle, E. (2010). Promotion of the assistant prin- cipal: good work is no guarantee. International Journal of Educational Leadership, 5(1), 1–2.
Smith, W. and Andrews, R. (1989). Instructional leadership:
how principals make a difference. Alexandria: Associa- tion of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Text submitted: July 30, 2017, revised: October 14, 2017, accepted: March 16, 2018.
Spiro, J. D. (2013). Effective principals in action:
learning should be at the centre of a school leader’s job, with good principals shaping the course of the school from inside the classroom and outside the office. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(8), 27.
Styron, R. A. Jr, and Styron, J. L. (2013). Critical issues facing school principals. Journal of College Teach- ing and Learning, 8(5), 1–10.
Szymański, M. L. (2001). Kryzys i zmiana. Studia nad przemianami edukacyjnymi w Polsce w latach dzie- więćdziesiatych. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej.
Więsław, S. (2011). Sytuacja i status zawodowy dyrektorów szkół i placówek oświatowych.
Warszawa: Ośrodek Rozwoju Edukacji.
Williams, J. and Dikes, C. (2015). The implications of demographic variables as related to burnout among special education teachers. Education, 135(3), 337–345.
Yang, Y. (2014). Principals’ transformational leader- ship in school improvement. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(3), 279–288.
Żak, M. (2007). Funkcjonowanie dyrektora szkoły zawo- dowej w okresie zmiany społecznej. [Doctoral disser- tation.] Warszawa: Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych.
Appendix 1: Survey questionnaire – English language version ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Gender: Male_____ Female_____
Age: 21–30_____ 31–40_____ 41–50_____ 51–60_____ 61–70_____
School: Elementary_____ Middle_____ High_____ Mixed grade_____
Part I. Please show the extent to which you agree or disagree with these statements by putting a numeric indication (from 1 to 5) inside the parenthesis of the corresponding statement. The following rating scale is used: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = no opinion; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree.
Field No. A school principal:
Character
1 needs to have a strong professional orientation and dedication to efficiently lead a school.
2 must be of honorable character to be a role-model to all teachers and students.
3 does not need to establish his/her creditability to work with the faculty and staff.
Professional knowledge
4 needs to have a high level of understanding about government politics to be able to implement the educational policies of the government.
5 needs to have good knowledge of educational philosophies to fulfill the responsibility of fostering students’ educational development.
6 needs to have a good scientific and cultural background in general to that he/she can work with quality improvement of instruction.
7 does not need to have knowledge of educational studies, psychology and school administration to lead a school.
8 needs to constantly improve himself/herself by learning new leadership principles and skills.
Professional skill
9 needs to have intellectual judgment to assign his/her faculty and staff to the corresponding positions compatible with their capabilities.
10 does not need to coordinate the efforts of different departments in the school.
11 needs to have excellent analytical skills to manage school business.
12 needs to exercise his/her leadership by making wise decisions for the school.
13 needs to manage his/her time wisely to enhance the work efficiency of the school
Administrative style
14 needs to encourage democracy in school. This will stimulate enthusiastic participation of the faculty, staff and parents toward decision making in school.
15 needs to conduct a self-evaluation of his/her performance.
Administrative duties
16 needs to develop a plan for the school’s future development with specific goals and objectives to be followed.
17 needs to focus on his/her administrative work. Instructional activities are not the primarily concern.
18 needs to continuously improve the quality of his/her school to meet the on-coming challenges.
19 manages all the school resources to support instructional activities.
20 needs to communicate well with his/her superiors to ensure proper implementation of the educational policies.
21 needs to develop the instructional program by placing an appropriate balance between the moral, academic, aesthetic, social and physical development of school children.
22 needs to develop an educational environment conducive to learning.
Personnel management
23 It is not necessary for a school principal to encourage his/her faculty and staff to continue improvement in their areas of expertise.
24 needs to closely supervise his/her faculty and staff to ensure the accomplishment of educational goals.
25 needs to encourage his/her faculty and staff to actively participate in the management of school affairs.
26 needs to assist in the professional development of his/her faculty and staff by formally and informally evaluating their performance.
Student affairs management
27 needs to develop a counseling program to assist needy students with their academic problems and personal stress.
28 does not need to maintain good school discipline to ensure a conducive learning environment.
29 needs to help students understand the purpose of learning so that they can develop a positive attitude toward school work.
30 needs to work with his/her faculty and staff to provide guidance to students concerning their political thinking orientation.
Part II. Please respond to the following questions about school principalship:
1 What do you perceive as the major responsibility of a school principal?
2 What are the major challenges of a school principal today?
3 What is fulfilling about the work of a school principal?
Appendix 2: Survey questionnaire – Polish language version ZADANIA I OBOWIĄZKI DYREKTORA SZKOŁY Płeć: Mężczyzna_____ Kobieta_____
Wiek: 21–30_____ 31–40_____ 41–50_____ 51–60_____ 61–70_____
Miejsce pracy: Szkoła podstawowa_____ Gimnazjum_____ Szkoła średnia_____ Zespół szkół_____
Część I: Proszę wskazać w jakim zakresie zgadza się Pan/i, bądź też nie z następującymi stwierdzeniami, wpisując w nawiasie na początku każdego ze stwierdzeń cyfrę (od 1 do 5) z poniższych odpowiedzi. Proszę posłużyć się następującą skalą: 1 = zdecytowanie nie zgadzam się, 2 = nie zgadzam się, 3 = nie mam zdania, 4 = zgadzam się, 5 = zdecydowanie się zgadzam.
Obszar Lp. Dyrektor szkoły:
Charakter
1 prowadzi szkołę, kierując się wysokimi normami etycznymi.
2 jest przykładem zachowań etycznych w wypełnianiu codziennych obowiązków związanych z zarządzaniem szkołą.
3 w pracy potwierdza i ugruntowuje swoją wiarygodność.
Wiedza zawodowa
4 rozumie politykę skutecznej współpracy z instytucjami samorządowymi.
5 stosuje różne podejścia edukacyjne wspomagające rozwój naukowy uczniów.
6 posiada duże doświadczenie w stosowaniu strategii zmierzających do poprawy wyników w nauczaniu.
7 nie potrzebuje doświadczenia w zarządzaniu aby prowadzić szkołę.
8 podnosi swoje umiejętności przywódcze poprzez wykorzystywanie szans oferowanych przez ścieżkę rozwoju zawodowego.
Umiejętności zawodowe
9 przydziela nauczycieli i pracowników szkoły do odpowiednich stanowisk zgodnych z ich umiejętnościami.
10 koordynuje pracę różnych obszarów szkoły.
11 posiada duże umiejętności analityczne służące zarządzaniu codziennymi sprawami szkoły.
12 podejmuje skuteczne decyzje usprawniające pracę szkoły.
13 odpowiednio zarządza swoim czasem dla uzyskania najwyższej wydajności pracy.
Styl zarządzania szkołą
14 promuje demokrację w środowisku szkolnym poprzez angażowanie różnych interesariuszy w podejmowanie wspólnych decyzji.
15 prowadzi samoocenę swojej efektywności.
Obowiązki administracyjne
16 przygotowuje realistyczne cele i zadania ujmowane w planach rozwoju szkoły.
17 traktuje działania szkoleniowe jako priorytet.
18 przygotowuje szkołę do stawiania czoła przyszłym wyzwaniom.
19 zarządza wszelkimi zasobami szkoły w celu wspomagania działań szkoleniowych.
20 realizuje zasady polityki edukacyjnej poprzez dogłębne zrozumienie ich znaczenia.
21 opiniuje i dopuszcza program nauczania oparty na fazach rozwojowych uczniów.
22 kreuje i wspomaga środowisko sprzyjające uczeniu się.
Zarządzanie personelem
23 zachęca nauczycieli i pracowników do ciągłego doskonalenia swoich obszarów specjalizacji.
24 pomaga nauczycielom i pracownikom w realizacji ich własnych celów zawodowych.
25 zachęca nauczycieli i pracowników do aktywnego uczestnictwa w zarządzaniu zasobami szkoły.
26 wpiera profesjonalny rozwój nauczycieli i pracowników poprzez ocenę efektywności ich pracy.
Zarządzanie sprawami uczniowskimi
27 przygotowuje program doradztwa wspierający edukacyjne potrzeby uczniów.
28 przygotowuje i wdraża ogólnoszkolny plan wychowawczy.
29 promuje pozytywne postawy uczniów zdolnych, osiągających dobre wyniki w nauce 30 dba o rozwój zainteresowań uczniów związanych z odpowiedzialnym obywatelstwem
i sprawami obywatelskimi.
Część II: Proszę odpowiedzieć na następujące pytania związane z funkcją dyrektora szkoły:
1 Jaki jest według Pana(i) podstawowy obszar odpowiedzialności dyrektora szkoły?
2 Jakie są główne wyzwania stojące dziś przed dyrektorem szkoły?
3 W jaki sposób dyrektor szkoły realizuje się w swojej pracy?
