Rural Superintendents Perceptions of Principal Preparation

As national and state expectations for school leadership competencies increase, new principals face an ever expanding role. Yet, scant attention is paid to the unique contextual needs of the varied school settings in which principals find themselves. This study surveyed rural superintendents of small districts (1 300 students) and mid-sized rural districts (301 600 students) to discover their perceptions of the development needs their new principals display. Seven areas of need were identified by the respondents, of which three pertained uniquely to the rural principalship. The three areas were: understanding the K 12 school structure, preparing for the isolation of rural life, and knowing how to provide instructional leadership in an environment of scarce resources (human and material). The superintendents were also asked their perceptions of the effectiveness of various principal training program delivery models. The preferred delivery model was the in-district university cohort program. The delivery models superintendents rated least effective were the exclusively on-line training program and the state approved alternative certification program.

National concern over the decreasing availability of high quality principals has been framed by a broad spectrum of educational groups and advocates (Browne-Ferrigno & Knoeppel, 2005;English, 2004;Hess & Kelly, 2005;Lasley, 2004). Issues range from a shrinking pool of applicants to questions regarding the preparedness of newly credentialed administrators to successfully transition to school principal role (Garrison-Wade, Goldring & Sims, 2005; Hess & Kelly, 2005;Sobel & Fulmer, 2007). Of particular note are the increasing expectations for the building principals to arrive on site with exemplary relationship building skills that allow them to bring together stakeholder groups with varied, and sometimes opposing, expectations (Goldring & Sims, 2005), proven pedagogical skills that allow them to be instructional leaders across classrooms and programs (Barnett, 2004), and broad understanding of curricula to assure equitable, appropriate access to learning for all students (Anderson & Louh, 2005 While school reform has moved forward as an initiative, focused on policies and regulations that apply uniformly to urban, suburban and rural schools, 21." century educators and policy makers continue to wrestle with the idea and promise of rural education. At the millennium, over 70% of the nation s school districts enrolled fewer than 2,500 students, and one third of these districts enrolled fewer than 600 students. These low population districts were collectively responsible for educating 20 percent of the U.S. student population (Arfstrom, 2002;Institute for Educational Leadership, 2005). Today's rural families expect their children s education to be equivalent to that of their urban and suburban counterparts (Arfstrom, 2002).
Another factor of importance in today s rural communities is the emerging immigration pattern. As immigrant families arrive in rural settings, they offer a workforce to struggling rural economies. They also bring children who may be bilingual or monolingual in a language other than English to the rural schools (Donato, Tolbert, Nucci, & Kawano, 2007). While economic and resource disparities exist for children in rural schools, the established measures of success, such as achievement results, graduation rates, and student engagement in extracurricular activities, show that rural students are on a par with their non-rural peers (Arfstrom, 2002).

Expectations for Today s Principals
The Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) convened a national task force in 2000 to raise public awareness about the issues facing educational leadership. The individuals invited to participate in the task force represented business, civic, education, and government groups. The discussion on school leadership in the 21" century arrived at two overarching principles. The first stated that principals must focus their leadership on learning above all else. Learning must clearly be the top priority in efforts to improve schools. The second stated that the position of principal, as While the challenges of geography, resources and economy of scale are clearly linked to small rural schools, there are assets associated with these settings as well. As Bauch (2001) stated, Rural students face many challenges in gaining a sound education, but one of the advantages they have is that their schools are set in a community context that values a sense of place and offers a unique set of conditions for building social capital important for helping students succeed in school. (pp. 204 205) Connections between rural schools and their communities tend to be closely knit and reflect the community patterns well. This means the schools mirror the economic and social stratifications found in the communities and are strongly influenced by these viewpoints (Bauch, 2001). Communication and exchange are more easily accomplished in these settings than in urban/suburban counterparts due to the central role the rural school is likely to play as a gathering place for the community, and to the ready, informal access to school staff (Cochran, et al., 2002). Rural inhabitants tend to view their communities as safe and share common values such as the importance of family, strong work ethic, and acceptable behavioral norms, which shape shared expectations for students and result in lower dropout rates and higher attendance rates than their urban counterparts (Bauch, 2001). There is another aspect to rural education that must be addressed by the school and community. Some families expect the schooling of their children to result in successful transition into the community as productive citizens, while other families expect the schooling to result in the development of capacities for their children to move into the world as autonomous, productive citizens outside the community (Bauch, 2002). This continuum calls for respectful, caring navigation by the educators in the community.
Staffing the rural school poses particular challenges for the leadership. The tendency to hire teachers from the community assures that the new hires are familiar with the setting, the isolation, the community norms and the lower salaries (Cochran et al., 2002). This practice can result in teachers who are younger, less experienced, and more likely to maintain the status quo (Bauch, 2001). Whether the staff is built around natives or newcomers, connections to the community are central to the success of the rural school.
Bauch (2001) (Creswell, 1998 Table   1). When asked the inverse question, to identify the least effective models, the rural superintendents ratings showed some consistency when compared to their ratings of highly effective delivery models. One superintendent from each group elected not to respond to this query. As Table 2 illustrates, eight small and eight mid-sized rural district superintendents rated the on-line program the least effective Table 2 delivery model. However, four small district superintendents rated the university/district partnership cohort as least effective (compared with four who rated it most effective). The mid-sized rural district superintendents showed notable agreement in their perceptions of least effective delivery models with the online program and state approved alternative certification models clearly identified as the least effective. The third question asked the superintendents to identify the most common delivery models represented in the training of their new principals (Table 3). Three small rural district superintendents did not respond to this question.
The most common delivery model for principal training in small rural districts was the university cohort program offered at the university followed by individual enrollment in a university program. The mid-sized rural superintendents listed the same two delivery models as the most common, but reversed the order. None of the participating superintendents had hired building administrators with licensure from the state-approved alternative certification program. None of the small rural districts had principals with certification from exclusively Table 3 Most Common Principal Preparation Delivery Model Ratings online programs, and none of the mid-sized districts had principals with certification from university/district partnership cohort programs. The data regarding the most common principal preparation programs raised some interesting patterns given the effectiveness ratings superintendents assigned to the various delivery models.
For example, while only two small district superintendents rated the university cohort as most effective, eight of them said it was the most common method of delivery. Similarly, six mid-sized district superintendents reported the individual on-campus program was most common, but none of them viewed it as most effective. Rural Principals Areas of Difficulty When asked to identify areas in which principals had difficulty over the course of their first year as rural school leaders, all superintendents offered thoughts on this question, and several of the mid-sized district superintendents noted more than one area of difficulty.
These areas were clustered into seven categories (see Table   4). The categories were: (a) understanding the rural K 12 This practice allowed teachers in rural districts to join colleagues from larger host or other rural districts. In one district, the cohort was hosted by a rural district and included participants from districts of larger size in the area. In these cases, cohorts were created from a variety of districts but remained a stable group throughout the training program. These delivery options created opportunity for rural educators to share a common focus and create a rural network of colleagues interested in school leadership. The majority of superintendents viewed the district cohort structures as preferable delivery models.
On-line and state alternative certification options were generally perceived the least effective, although their accessibility was duly recognized by the rural superintendents. One of the issues with these delivery models relates to the scarcity of human and material resources and support in rural districts. Although on-line or alternative certification participants in larger districts are working independently, they have many more colleagues in their districts to answer questions or assist them in their efforts. In rural districts, the small size of the staffs and low numbers of administrators mean that individuals are more likely to be entirely on their own as they work toward their principal license. The isolation makes the internship experience, common to most preparation programs, particularly important. New principals are faced with the need to balance competing demands as they negotiate their new role. The internship and the inherent mentoring and supervision that occur help provide some insight and experience in juggling the multitude of daily tasks. An internship focused on instructional leadership, accountability, advocacy and visionary stewardship is essential to developing the leadership capacity needs for schools of the 21" century (Usdan, et al., 2000). However, study participants noted the depth of the internship experience varies widely. They observed that the mentor role in rural settings is both difficult to create and yet essential for effective transition to administrative positions. In addition, the current economic downturn and decreasing enrollments in schools lessen the likelihood of moving into the position of principal from the role of assistant principal.
In the rural setting, it is also less likely that a peer is available to offer support to the new principal.
The superintendents of rural districts presented an array of needs displayed by beginning principals that makes a strong case for mentor/partnership relationships for new administrators that extend past the licensure phase into the transition phase of the first year or two of leadership at the building level. Districts with the K 12 schools are particularly in need of support when a newly hired administrator has no teaching or administrative experience at one or even two of the levels included in the school.
Unfamiliarity with elementary, middle, or secondary requirements, learner stages and developmental needs puts balanced attention to the particular requirements of elementary, middle and high school students and staff in jeopardy.

Conclusion
While the idea of a rural lifestyle has a place of note in our educational and cultural history, the reality of the geography, access to resources, and relationship-building in the rural community requires a commitment to outreach and time that is not anticipated by candidates lacking personal and/or professional experience in rural settings. Support structures that allow new administrators to access meaningful connections to peers in similar situations may be in place but loosely organized. Electronic networks, mentor programs and regional association activities provide opportunity for support but need to be purposefully organized to offer timely connections to individuals frequently overwhelmed by new demands in a new environment. The promise of mentor/partnership structures may offer an important support system to new principals but the nature of those structures must match the unique configurations faced by new rural administrators.