A Gap Analysis of Principal Preparation Programs in Illinois 143
Allocate Unprepared & Little (1 & 2) =
Adequate preparation (3) =
Well & Outstanding (4 & 5) =
16%
34%
50%25%
37%
38%31%
25%
44%
Curriculum Unprepared & Little (1 & 2) =
Adequate preparation (3) =
Well & Outstanding (4 & 5) =
14%
35%
51%22%
30%
48%33%
22%
45%
Communication
Unprepared & Little (1 & 2) =
Adequate preparation (3) =
Well & Outstanding (4 & 5) =
11%
34%
55%22%
32%
46%34%
23%
43%
Personal Unprepared & Little (1 & 2) =
Adequate preparation (3) =
Well & Outstanding (4 & 5) =
9%
34%
57%34%
26%
40%38%
18%
44%DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS
Based upon the data by adding together the “adequate,” “well,” and “outstanding” percen-
tile rankings from Table 5, the survey participants perceived that principal preparation pro-
grams are doing an “adequate” to “outstanding” job of preparing those seeking the principal-
ship with entry-level skills/competencies. Superintendents’ percentile rankings of the prepara-
tion of principals ranged from 82% to 95% adequate to outstanding. Principals’ percentile
rankings of their own preparation ranged from 64% to 89% adequate to outstanding on the 17
skills/competencies. And teachers’ percentile rankings of the preparation of principals ranged
from 55% to 75% adequate to outstanding on the 17 skills/competencies.
Why is there a seeming gap of perception in the range of the three groups? As Table 4
demonstrates the closer the respondents’ role is to the classroom, the greater the gap between
the respondents’ perceived skill/competency in preparation and the importance of that
skill/competency. For example in the skill/competency of distributed leadership, the superin-
tendents’ reported gap was .73, the principals’ reported gap was .94, and the teachers’ re-
ported gap was 1.28. There could be several arguments for this perception gap. From a Tay-
loristic organizational viewpoint, the superintendent would have a more comprehensive view-
point of the work of the principal and therefore would have an advantage in perception. From
a human sociological or psychological perspective, principals would rate themselves lower
because psychologically people tend to rate themselves lower than others would rate them.
From a systemic construct, teachers would have the best perspective because they are the
closest to the real work of the school and the real work of the principal.
The data do not answer a very important issue for principal preparation programs: are the
skills/competencies being taught in principal preparation programs the appropriate skills? Ta-
ble 3 suggests that all three groups were in agreement that the 17 skills/competencies listed
were “very” to “absolutely” important with average scores of 4-plus on a scale of 1 to 5.
While respondents demonstrated that these skills/competencies were important, they did not
have the opportunity to add additional items to the list.
Another very important concern for principal preparation programs is to determine the en-
try-level skill/competency versus the skill/competency of a veteran principal. Just as in the
classroom, the beginning teacher can not be expected to perform at the same skill/competency
level as a veteran teacher; the beginning principal can not be expected to perform at the same
skill/competency level as a veteran principal. While the data from this study help to determine
the skills/competencies, data do not address the level needed for an entry-level principal.