Wynn brown

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL
VOLUME 20, NUMBER 1, 2006--2007
TEACHING VERSUS SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATION:
THE CHOICE LEADERSHIP-SKILLED
WOMEN TEACHERS MAKE
Susan R. Wynn
Duke University
Kathleen M. Brown
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
ABSTRACT
Indicators point to a potential shortage of school administrators, as well as
teachers, in the USA. Without doubt, the role of the principal has grown increasingly
complex in light of greater accountability and problematical social complexities. In an
effort to be proactive, the primary objective of this qualitative research study was to gain
a better understanding of why leadership-skilled women teachers choose to remain in
the classroom rather than seek administrative positions. Two sub-questions emerged: (a)
How do leadership-skilled women teachers perceive the principalship role? And (b)
What barriers related to school administration do leadership-skilled women teachers
identify?
Four constructs were used to analyze the data and present the findings. Under
the construct of language the participants’ perceptions of the principal’s and the
teacher’s role are analyzed. In the section on power, points of resistance are explored.
The third section relates subjectivity to the participants’ discussion on viewing
themselves in the role of the principal. Finally, the last construct of common sense
assumptions addresses the topic of women as nurturers, and, more specifically, the
career choices the participants would make if they were given the opportunity to make
different choices.
The women who participated in this study see a great divide between the role of
the teacher and the role of the school administrator. In light of the growing educator
shortage, one possible solution might be to restructure the job responsibilities of the
principal, for instance with co-principalships.
3

4 NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL
Introduction
These are difficult times for educators. These are even more
difficult times for school districts that are confronting the mounting
problem of filling both teaching positions and administrative posts
with highly qualified professionals. No one would argue that it is
essential to have both well-qualified teachers and administrators to
confront the growing complexities of public education. However,
available evidence suggests that many school districts are
encountering a paucity of applicants in the candidate pool for teacher
and for administrator positions.
Researchers posit that 30% to 50% of teachers leave after
five years in the profession (Ingersoll, 2003; Wilson, 2000).
In fact, nine percent of new teachers do not complete their
first year (Black, 2001), and 14% leave after their first year
(Ingersoll, 2002). According to American School Board
Journal, 30% of beginning teachers leave the classroom
within three years. Nine percent of new teachers do not
make it through their first year of teaching (Black, 2001).
Coupled with this sobering statistic is the fact that
enrollment in public schools is projected to grow by 4%
between 1997 and 2009 (Olson, 2000). While enrollment is
projected to grow, the teaching pool is shrinking. With the
average teacher being 44 years old, school districts can
expect to face numerous retirements in the coming years
(Olson, 2000). These statistics raise some important issues
for school districts already feeling the effects of the
federally legislated No Child Left Behind Act that
stipulates all schools receiving Title I funds must be staffed
with highly qualified teachers.
Indicators also point to a potential shortage of administrators, a
shortage many states are already experiencing. Education Week
reported that out of 403 randomly selected districts, over 50% indicate
a shortage of candidates for principalships (Olson, 1999). These

Susan R. Wynn & Kathleen M. Brown 5
shortages were reported in urban, rural, and suburban districts and
were true for elementary, middle, and high schools. A study conducted
by the Educational Research Service (1998) under the auspices of the
National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) and
the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)
reported that two out of every three principals surveyed indicated a
concern over whether or not school districts could attract high-quality
leaders. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted the demand for
school administrators will increase 10 to 20% due to retirements
(American School Board Journal, 1998).
One way to examine the teacher and administrator shortage is
to explore the gendered nature of education. Women constitute 73% of
the teaching force in the United States (American School Board
Journal, 1998). Given the preponderance of women teachers, one
would expect women to occupy the majority of administrative
positions as well. The percentage of women serving in leaderships
roles, however, clearly demonstrates their under-representation in the
field: women hold only 11% of school superintendencies, 9.9% of
high school principalships, and 42% of elementary and middle school
principalships combined (American School Board Journal, 1998).
These numbers illustrate what historically has been the case in
educational administration—men have traditionally held
superintendencies, principalships, and other positions of power, while
women have served predominantly as teachers.
The issue at hand is there is a growing shortage of qualified
administrators and teachers. This study sought to explore the
perceptions of leadership-skilled women teachers who choose to
remain in the classroom in order to gain insight into how these
teachers view school administration. In an effort to be proactive, it is
important to understand why women teachers who possess leadership
skills choose to remain in the classroom rather than seek career
advancement. A more comprehensive understanding of this
circumstance could ultimately impact policies as they relate to issues

of job satisfaction for teachers, the job description of principals, and
perhaps lead to an untapped source of candidates for school
administrative positions.
Women and Leadership
The topic of women and leadership has received much
attention in recent years, in part because earlier research on
organizations was based solely upon men and their experiences.
Androcentrism, the practice of viewing the world and shaping reality
through a male lens, is evident in many areas and particularly so in
theories about leadership and organizations (Shakeshaft, 1993).
Traditional theories of leadership were based upon traditional male
experiences and understandings (Brunner, 1997). Researchers assumed
that their findings were applicable, regardless of race and gender; thus,
the theories used to frame research, such as contingency theory and
Theory X and Theory Y, remained silent on issues of race and gender
(Banks, 2000). This clearly presents a problem when this is considered
the “norm” against which all others are measured. As Shakeshaft
(1993) noted, “Studying male behavior, and more particularly white
male behavior, is not by itself a problem. It becomes a problem when
the results of studying male behavior are assumed appropriate for
understanding all behavior” (p.94).
That said, the question arises, do women have their own
leadership style? To say that all women lead differently from men is to
run the risk of over-generalizing and essentializing. Some women
exhibit leadership styles that can be described as authoritarian, while
some men exhibit democratic leadership. The most apposite strategy is
the one proposed by Grogan (1999), who stated that it is important to
operate “on the understanding that there is no one set of experiences
that can be labeled as women’s experiences, and that women may be
as different as they are alike” (p.523). With this in mind, an overview
of the literature on women’s ways of leadership might be useful.

Shakeshaft (1995) argued that one explanation for difference in
style of women school administrators is attributable to language,
stating that women administrators use language that can be
characterized as “power with” versus “power over” (p.12). For many
women school administrators, this language difference plays out in
many different arenas, including teacher relationships, instruction,
community, and evaluation: “Women spend more time with people,
communicate more, care more about individual differences, are
concerned more with teachers and marginal students, and motivate
more than do men” (Shakeshaft, 1995, p.12). Ozga and Walker (1995)
added that women principals exhibit more effective communication
skills and foster a sense of community in their schools. Even the
communication through body language by women administrators is
considered less dominant.
In an Australian study, Blackmore (1993) discovered that
women principals “work against formal hierarchy, are more
collaborative, and tend to focus on students and curriculum” (p.50).
Additionally, she found that women were focused more on instruction
than men and exhibited more knowledge of teaching methodology and
instruction techniques. Women principals also gave more feedback
regarding instruction than did men, generally. In evaluation settings,
teacher feedback from women principals was more collegial in
comparison to the feedback given by their male counterparts. This was
evident by the fact that women principals asked more questions and
used the pronoun ‘we’ as opposed to ‘I.’ “Males, more than females,
approached the task as expert and judge. Women principals interacted
more as facilitator and helper” (p.17).
Women may or may not bring something different to school
leadership. As Shakeshaft (1999) noted, recent literature builds the
case that women administrators are “more democratic, caring, and
reform-minded than their male counterparts” (p.115). She also puzzled
that if it is indeed true that women approach the job of administration
differently from men, the reason why this is true is less clear.

Women in School Administration
At a time when leading schools is growing more complex and
challenging, women have made some gains in assuming school
leadership roles, which were once considered the sole domain of men.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that the
percentage of female principals rose from 21.4% to 34.5% from 1984
to 1994. Among principals with less than five years of administrative
experience, more than 38% were women (Zheng & Carpenter-Hubin,
1999). In 1998 women held 42% of elementary principalships,
indicating that women have certainly made progress at this level. On
the other hand, at the middle school level women accounted for only
24.8% of junior/middle school principalships. The disproportion was
even more evident at the high school level, where women retained
only 9% of the principalships (American School Board Journal, 1998).
Certainly the number of women school administrators has
increased, particularly at the elementary school level. However, when
comparing the number of women school administrators with the
number of women teachers, inequities clearly still exist. The research
documenting the barriers and constraints that women in school
administration face is extensive. However, there is emerging interest
in the area of women who have leadership skills but are saying no to
administration. Researchers examined the internal and external
barriers that 92 women in Texas perceived constrained them from
actively seeking administrative posts (DeFelice & Schroth, 1999).
Internal barriers related to women’s perceptions of themselves, and
external barriers referred to those over which women had little control.
Similar studies conducted in 1977 and in 1992 had determined that
there were internal barriers that women gave for not going into
administration. These internal barriers ranged from lack of interest in
administration, unwillingness to relocate, and family/personal
constraints. Women in this Texas study reported external barriers as
well, including politics and the “good old boy” network, lack of
support from colleagues and mentors, and sexual discrimination.
Women also cited race, age and lack of experience as barriers to them

obtaining administrative positions (DeFelice & Schroth, 1999). The
researchers concluded that not much had changed in the 20 years since
the 1977 study.
Several possible conclusions can be drawn about women
teachers and their aspirations to administration. One conclusion is that
there is at least a perception regarding external barriers that prevent
them from considering administration. Secondly, there appear to be
internal constraints that women have that perhaps men do not.
Boulton and Coldron (1998) noted that many of the barriers
women experience come from “the gendered nature of relationships”
(p.160). In this study the researchers sought to demonstrate how what
appears to be choice is actually constraint. Recognizing the lack of
generalizability, these researchers examined one case in which a
highly qualified woman did not apply for a management level position
in a school in England known for its concern with equality issues.
What was first perceived to be choice on the part of the woman
candidate to decline applying clearly became a case of constraints.
These constraints were not the result of external barriers that have
been well documented by the literature. Instead, they were a complex
mixture of internal “feelings” that the candidate had, such as she did
not receive strong vocal support from her colleagues and she
questioned the impact her appointment would have on her working
relationship with her male counterpart. “Most importantly, what is
demonstrated is that in an environment where commitment to equal
opportunities was genuine and widespread, it was still possible for an
able and confident woman to feel isolated and disadvantaged by the
actions of her colleagues” (p.159). The constraints revealed in this
particular study were “less tangible though perhaps just as widely
experienced as constraints associated with family role or those related
to notions of promotability, with which we are more familiar” (p.160).
These intangible constraints are what this current study on leadership-
skilled women teachers sought to uncover and name.

Conceptual Framework
The combination of two theoretical approaches, post-
structuralism and feminist theory, promotes an examination of the
institutional and social contexts in which women teachers with
leadership abilities operate. This particular framework serves the dual
purposes of giving voice to marginalized groups and at the same time,
understanding these voices in a different way. As Lather (1991) noted,
the coupling of feminism to poststructuralism includes the retention of
practice with the growth of theory, the belief in human potential to
impact practice, and the desire to take a stand while engaging in self-
reflection. Grogan (1996) proposed feminist poststructuralism as a
theory “that identifies possibilities for social change by inquiring into
the origins and manifestations of both institutional knowledge and
beliefs and individual knowledge and beliefs” (p.34). Scott (1988)
added that poststructuralism and contemporary feminism are both
movements that “share a certain self-conscious critical relationship to
established philosophical and political traditions” (p.34). The agenda a
feminist postructuralism might consider includes an analysis of the
patriarchal structures of society, with an emphasis on the relation
between language, subjectivity, and power (Weedon, 1997).
Four features of poststructuralism were of central importance
for this research study: language and discourse, power, subjectivity,
and common sense assumptions. These constructs were used as tools
to analyze the voices of the women who were interviewed for this
study. Feminist poststructural theories refer to the interactions and
contradictions among language, subjectivity, power and common
sense assumptions that are used to examine how power is exercised
and the potential for change. Capper (1992) explicated these four
constructs and offered questions that can be used to effectively address
each area.

Language and Discourse
Without doubt, language and discourse are at the heart of
poststructrualist analysis (Scott, 1988). Weedon (1997) noted, “For
poststructuralist theory, the common factor in the analysis of social
organization, social meanings, power and individual consciousness is
language. Language is the place where actual and possible forms of
social organization and their likely social and political consequences
are defined and contested” (p.21). Language must be understood as
existing within the context of historical discourses and also in terms of
competing discourses. Language and discursive practices reveal
various conceptions of femininity and masculinity through which
people live their lives (Weedon, 1997).
Scott (1988) explained that language is more than just words,
vocabulary or grammatical rules, but is a “meaning-constituting
system,” a system “through which meaning is constructed and cultural
practices organized and by which, accordingly, people represent and
understand their world, including who they are and how they relate to
others” (p.34). Related to language is the concept of discourse,
primarily developed in the work of Foucault. Scott (1988) defined
discourse by first stating what it is not – it is not a language. Instead, a
discourse is “a historically, socially, and institutionally specific
structure of statements, terms, categories, and beliefs” (p.35).
Additionally, the power to control a particular field resides in
claims to (scientific) knowledge exemplified not only in writing, but
also as it relates to professional organizations, such as the National
Educators Association (NEA), institutions such as schools, and social
relationships, such as teacher/administrator. According to Capper
(1992), the relevant questions to ask related to language and discourse
included the following: “To what extent are particular values and
interests served, and which ones are silenced? What discourses are
named and which are silenced” (p.200)?

Power
Power is thought of as located in the institution rather than in
the individual (Grogan, 1996). Power is related to knowledge and the
issue of power is a central concern of feminist poststructural theory.
Borrowing from Foucault’s notion of power, power is relational. In
other words, the issue of power is not power over in
superordinate/subordinate sense, but more in terms of something that
is exercised by different people or groups of people at various times
dependent on the situation. In this sense power is also about points of
resistance (Weedon, 1997). Johnston (1994) substantiated this point:
“Foucault…suggests that power is exercised through discourse and
that the structure of discourse may serve either to silence or give voice
to subordinates and marginal members of an organization” (p.128).
Furthermore, “…the central focus of language as the vehicle through
which knowledge is reified gives language the effect of power”
(p.137). Grogan (1996) noted that through alliances that are formed by
groups sharing similar thoughts, they are able to marginalize those
who have different views. Capper (1992) asked, “To what extent is the
focus on dissensus, resistance, contradiction, and conflict or on
consensus” (p.200)?
Subjectivity
Subjectivity, as it relates to poststructuralism, places doubt on
the stability of identity. Subjectivity, according to feminist
poststructural theory, is constructed and is not an innate part of a
being. Weedon (1997) asserted that subjectivity is “not genetically
determined, but socially produced” (p.21). Grogan (1996) added, “…
subjectivity is a changing process and often involves conflicting
versions of the self made available as one grows older, moves in
different circles, and even as the institutional discourses themselves
change over time” (p.36).

The idea of subjectivity allows us to understand how we are
constituted by our position in a discourse (Grogan, 1996). With
subjectivity there is no one fixed identity. In fact, subjectivity “allows
for the exploration of the shifting, contradictory, incomplete, and
competing interpretations of personal identity” (Capper, 1993, p.21).
Capper (1992) asked: “How is identity manifested in terms of societal
and institutional power? To what extent are subjective experiences of
individuals considered important? Is identity presented multiply and
as evolutionary, constantly in process” (p.200)?
Common Sense Assumptions
Common sense truisms are knowledge statements that are
accepted unquestionably because that is just the way things are
perceived to be. Weedon (1997) explained, however, “Common sense
knowledge is not a monolithic, fixed body of knowledge” (p.75). As
she reminded us, the power of common sense lies in its claim to be
“natural, obvious and therefore true” (p.75). Grogan (1996) added,
“‘Common’ sense surely refers to knowledge shared by those whose
values or beliefs are the same, and whose view of the work dominates
by virtue of this sameness” (p.40). Capper (1992) asked, “What does
the text reveal about culture or “the way we do things around here”
(pp.104-105)?
Methods
This study sought to understand why women teachers with
leadership skills choose to remain in the classroom rather than position
themselves for administrative roles. The focus was on the discourse of
teachers who have ignored the “tap on the shoulder” that indicates
someone in power thinks a teacher should contemplate seeking an
administrative position (Marshall & Kasten, 1994, p.6). The women in

this study demonstrated to some degree that they have the potential to
be successful school administrators, but for various reasons, have
resisted career advancement.
This qualitative research study, which is part of a larger
research project designed to explore and further the knowledge base
related to women in educational leadership, sought to understand the
following: Why do leadership-skilled women teachers choose to
remain in the classroom rather than seek administrative positions?
Two sub-questions emerged: (a) How do leadership-skilled women
teachers perceive the principalship role? And (b) What barriers related
to school administration do leadership-skilled women teachers
identify? These guiding questions served as the foundation on which
this study was designed and the interview questions were drafted.
Feminist poststructural theory served as the underpinning for the
analysis of the data.
The researchers focused the study on one school district in a
southeastern state in the U.S. This district serves 31,000 students in
schools that vary tremendously based upon their location. The district
consists of 44 schools that serve students who are ethnically,
culturally, and socio-economically diverse.
In the tradition of qualitative research, purposeful sampling
(Patton, 1990) was the technique used. Purposeful sampling refers “to
the practice of selecting cases that are likely to be information-rich
with respect to the purposes of qualitative study” (Gall & Gall, 1996,
p.231). For this research study, the goal was to select teachers who
varied in regard to level of school (elementary, middle, secondary,
high), location of school (rural, urban, suburban) and years of teaching
experience. Principals of ten schools were asked to recommend two or
three women teachers who, in their opinion, demonstrated leadership
in the school and had the capacity for school administration. For each
recommended teacher principals completed two forms. The first form
asked principals to identify the following: the assumption of additional
school-related duties, participation in decision-making, and the

provision of instructional leadership. Principals also completed a
Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) (Northouse,
1997). The LBDQ is designed to measure two major types of
leadership behavior, task orientation and relationship behavior. Task
orientation refers to the degree to which the person helps to establish
structure that aid in role definition and identification of expectations.
Relationship behavior refers to the degree to which the person engages
in interpersonal actions that help to build positive relations. Consisting
of 20 statements to which the principal replied how often the
recommended teacher engaged in the described behavior, the
questionnaire provided a profile of leadership style.
Through this process a pool of 21 potential research
participants was created. The selected teachers were mailed a letter
explaining the study, an informed consent form, the LBDQ for self-
assessment, and a sample of the interview questions. Using maximum
variation sampling, the researchers selected and interviewed 12
participants who had been identified as possessing leadership skills
suitable for administration and who varied across school grade level
taught, location of their school, and their years of experience (see
Tables 1 and 2 for a summary of the participants’ demographic
information and leadership roles). Note that pseudonyms have been
used. The leadership survey scores (both the principal’s assessment of
the teacher and the teacher’s own self-assessment) also were used as a
tool to ascertain the final participants.
Interviewees were asked to share their thoughts and feelings
regarding their own role as teachers and teacher leaders, their
perception of the principalship, and their reasons for choosing to
remain in the classroom rather than positioning themselves for school
administrative roles. The teachers were interviewed face-to-face in
their school settings for approximately one and a half hours. The
interviews were semi-structured, tape-recorded and later transcribed
for purposes of analysis. A reflective journal and extensive field notes
documenting body language, facial expressions, gestures and other
non-verbal cues were kept throughout the process.

The conceptual framework, the sites, and the sample helped to
focus the data analysis. Miles and Huberman (1998) explained, “These
choices have a focusing and bounding function, ruling out certain
variables, relationships, and associated data, and selecting others for
attention (p.185). Following complete immersion in the data and
reflection on the conceptual framework, themes and categories
emerged, which were supported with thick description including
quotations and details. The data were triangulated and verified by
using multiple researchers and multiple data collection methods: the
in-depth interviews, interview logs, document analysis, field notes,
leadership survey scores, and reflective journals.
Findings
The data from this study were analyzed and then structured around
four key conceptual categories from feminist poststructural theory:
language, power, subjectivity, and common sense assumptions. Fraser
and Nicholson (1992) asserted that a primary aim of feminist theory is
social criticism. As this type of framework suggests, gender is a major
focus and the purpose is to explore ways to alter the existing power
relations between women and men in society (Weedon, 1997).
Under the construct of language the participants’ perceptions
of the principal’s role, in addition to the teacher’s role in the
classroom, are analyzed. In the section on power, points of resistance
are explored. The third section relates subjectivity to the participants’
discussion on viewing themselves in the role of the principal. Finally,
the last construct of common sense assumptions addresses generally
the topic of women as nurturers and specifically the career choices the
participants in this study indicated they would make if they were given
the opportunity to make different choices.

Language and Discourse
Borrowing from Foucault, Capper (1993) defined discursive
fields as “language that is specific to the culture of a particular
discourse” (p.25). People are inclined to undergo conflict and
fragmentation if the discourses within which they are engaged are not
congruent (Grogan, 2000). The discursive fields of the participants in
this study were primarily that of education and for many, family,
parenting, and motherhood. These two discursive fields were, for the
most part, compatible for the participants in this study. As the
participants considered the discursive field of school administration,
however, it appeared that this discourse was not congruent with
teaching.
The language some of the participants used often gave
glimpses into their perceptions of the role of principal, a role they
more often than not viewed as one filled by a man. Dora Cobb, a high
school teacher, revealed that over the course of her 30 years in
education, she had always worked for male principals. As she
considered the fact that women are underrepresented in the
administrative ranks, she commented that perhaps men felt “this lack
of satisfaction” and that “there’s a hole that’s not being met in the
classroom,” a feeling that could be met by being “in control of the
school.” She handed the power over to men. “Maybe the women just
don’t need that, and that may be from society, the man of the house
type thing, the father is the one who has the final word. Let the
principals and the assistant principals be the father.”
Her analogy of the principal to the father is both fascinating
and troubling, since this comparison suggests this participant believes
that women are still viewed in a subservient role, earning less money
and held in less regard than the “father,” even though women are
doing the real work. In a patriarchal society, the father is the one in
control, one who sets the limits, and establishes the boundaries.

The comparison of administration to family surfaced again
with another high school teacher, Jan Moore. In talking about the
structure of a school she said, “Like you have a mother and a father,
and those mothers and fathers have different children: math, history,
English. Then within their children, they marry and have their own
little children. But then we would all come to have one family
reunion.” In her current position as math teacher at a large suburban
high school, she did not see the male principal, the father, as being
effective at bringing the faculty together as a family, however. She did
mention, though, that he was a great “business leader” who did a great
job “handling” parents and “shielding” the teachers. She didn’t see
him as a “children lover” though, a quality she felt was important.
Middle school teacher Lana Adders described herself as a
“touchy-feely” person who liked to joke around and feel close to the
people with whom she worked. She also compared the principal to a
parental role. She did not feel comfortable with the current male
principal, stating that “he’s not as social of a person” as she would
prefer working with. She commented that her principal didn’t
communicate—“he doesn’t speak, doesn’t talk to you.” She
elaborated, “That can be an intimidating fact. I might be a little scared
of him and do exactly what he says. Other people might look at that (at
the principal) and say he’s not friendly and won’t like him. I don’t say
that at all. I just think it’s his personality. More men tend to be that
way, if you look at the stereotypical.” She described her previous
principal, who was a woman, as a collaborative decision-maker who
valued the input of teachers.
Again, the idea of the principal as father figure surfaced. Lana
stated that she didn’t want the principal to be “upset with me,”
comparing it to how she would feel with her parents being mad at her
when she was growing up. “If you respect or value them, you don’t
want them to be disappointed in you.”

At the elementary school level, teachers in this study tended to
stress the importance of family as it related to building a sense of
community. A teacher who had been a student at the school where she
was currently teaching, Celie Chaps, intensely cared for the
community and the school and her passion for the school was evident.
Her school had experienced several administrative turnovers, in
addition to a change in student population. She wanted to return the
school to “a family” where the teachers knew each other and
supported one another. She took exception to the fact that many
middle and high school administrators, who were all men, did their
principal training at this particular school. “…men only want the
middle school and high school principals, or they’re going to use the
elementary as a stepping stone only because they have to and have the
attitude, ‘Get me out of here as soon as you can.’” She felt that school
boards looked at “men first only because they feel like men are the
better administrators and better role models for those young men who
don’t have that many positive male role models. Women, I think, are
probably last choice on this list.” The patriarchal discursive field of
educational administration, along with hiring practices, is readily
apparent.
Kim Dorsey felt that little had changed in regard to
stereotypical gender roles. She thought that men were much more
aggressive about pursuing administrative positions, even when they
only had four or five years of teaching experience. “Very few females
are ever going to be seen doing that. Someone has to plant the seed.”
However, she did not feel that this was the case for men. “…I think for
a lot of male administrators, that’s when they start. That’s why they
climb up the ladder and become principals of high schools. Year ten of
the principalship, they’ve done the elementary, they’ve done the
middle school, they’ve done it all.” She felt that school administration
was perceived to be a profession for men while teaching was a
profession for women. “I would put it in the lines that doctors are male
and nurses are female. It’s the same. Bosses are male; secretaries are
female. I don’t know where that chain breaks; I don’t know how it
breaks.”

Another high school teacher who had also worked only with
male principals, Rhonda Waters, spoke about her comfort level with
the hierarchy because of her own experience in the military, a field
historically structured for and dominated by men. “Just tell me what to
do, and I’ll do it,” she stated in reference to her position as teacher.
The discourse of school administration was being served.
At the elementary level the participants tended to stress the
importance of community and did not view the principal as a parental
figure. It is interesting to note that at the elementary level all the
teachers who participated in this study were in schools where the
current principal was a woman. This is certainly not to imply that
women principals are better at building community than principals
who are men; a feminist poststructural framework would not allow for
such a generalization. For this study, however, elementary participants
discussed the need for community building and relationships and
placed less importance on the authority of the principal. This could
also be related to the fact that elementary schools are usually smaller
than middle and high schools, and having a sense of community is
generally easier to attain due to smaller numbers and younger children.
Power
The concept of power is complex and contentious, and an
exploration of the multifaceted aspects of power is beyond the scope
of this research study. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, points
of resistance are discussed, for a feminist poststructural perspective
implies resistance as other voices are included (Grogan, 2000).
The participants in this study acknowledged that the
principalship is a position of power; however, many of the teachers
have found ways to temper this power. Particularly noticeable in the
discourses of women high school teachers working for male principals
were localized points of resistance to the school administrative
discourse. It was important for Kim Dorsey to point out that she didn’t

think she was “beneath” the principal. She elaborated, “I think you
need both parts to make a school work. I don’t think that being a
classroom teacher is necessarily less than anyone else.” She added that
individuals “enable somebody to either look down on you or judge
you by what your profession is. I’m happier in the classroom than I
would be as an administrator, so I choose to stay in the classroom.” In
this case, Kim has tried consciously to place herself outside of the
hierarchical nature of school administration.
Lana Adders shared a similar sentiment. She did not view
herself as subordinate to the principal, again viewing this person as
male. “I may be subordinate to him on the books and on the ladder, but
I think that any principal that is worth his weight in cotton or anything
knows that you are only as strong as your faculty.” This quote,
however, is in complete contrast to her earlier comments about fearing
the current male principal, whom she viewed in a parental role.
High school teacher Dora Cobb had a rather subversive point
of resistance in regard to the male-dominated principalship.
From my point of view, if the good teachers stay in the
classroom and the not-so-good teachers are the ones who
leave the classroom, then I can almost have a bias the other
way and say the males who are in administration might not
have been cutting it as teachers, whereas the females who
are in the classroom may be very successful and feel
satisfied.
She felt that she got the “pluses and the minuses” by working with the
students, and she could “still have a finger in the pie of the running of
the school” through weekly meetings with the principal. In her
opinion, this was much more preferable than having to be the one “to
take all the phone calls.” Her statement revealed a possible point of
resistance as she explained that the effective (“good”) teachers are
really the ones who experience job satisfaction in comparison to the
principal.

These women have found points of resistance within the school
administration discourse. Teresa Vrack, however, wanted to remove
herself from the discourse completely by one day starting a charter
school. “I kind of looked back on my first year of teaching and
thought about different ways that I wished the school were different
and then things I could control and things I could try to help with that
weren’t being successful in the school,” she stated. She did not see
many options for effecting wholesale change within the current
setting, so she has decided starting a charter school is the most viable
course of action.
The women in this study were often cautious in their comments
about women as principals. Many of them stated they did not feel that
women were not as heavily represented in school administration
because women couldn’t handle the job. However, they did make
comments that related to the “good old boys’ network that has male
mentors or men in leadership roles making decisions about positions
based upon gender. Another teacher shared that if the majority of the
teaching force consisted of men, “they would get more money because
first of all, men would mandate that men get more money.”
For the most part, the participants indicated they were not
motivated by money and through the discussion of financial
compensation it became clear that this was not a point of resistance for
these participants. Patricia Cabby noted that she thought her salary
now was “decent” but she had had to work “100 years almost to get a
decent salary.” Although the majority of these teachers were not
motivated by money, they did lament the fact that their salaries were
incomparable to other fields.
When I graduated, I’d have done it for free, I was so ready
to get in a classroom. I look at my brother-in-law, who used
to work for the Pic n Pay shoes home office, and he was in
charge of teaching people how to sell shoes and was
making twice as much money as I was and benefits. I said,
‘This is our future I am teaching, and you’re just teaching

somebody how to sell pairs of cheap shoes that you just
have to go get the box off the shelf.’ (Celie Chaps)
Celie added that teaching was respected but “respected on the level
that you would respect a minister or whatever, but you know those
people aren’t in it to make money.”
Katie Mills drew a distinction between men and women related
to money, noting that women appear “happy” with the salary and do
not question their compensation. Similarly, Kim Dorsey said, “I know
that we don’t get paid what we’re worth, but I live just fine.” Patricia
Cabby summed it up: “I wish I made a little more money, but money
is not everything. You have to love what you do. If I were making
$100,000 and didn’t like what I was doing, it wouldn’t be worth it to
me. I love what I do.”
Participants expressed their awareness of the discrepancy in
pay for a teacher in comparison to a principal. It became clear that
they often attributed this discrepancy to the male gender, a common
sense assumption. Patricia Cabby commented, “For one thing, males
have always traditionally gotten paid more than us. They’re supposed
to be the breadwinners. I don’t see too many males trying to have a
family on a teacher’s salary.”
Dora Cobb also assumed that women are not motivated by a
desire to earn more money.
I can see that being a reason why a man might pursue
administration whereas there are more women who are
married to men who have jobs where their salary is not
greater than their husbands but might be equal to or less
than. Therefore, they don’t have the impetus or the push to
go for the greater dollars because it’s being taken care of.
(Dora Cobb)

In this discussion of financial compensation no mention of equity was
made. The participants did not question the fairness of men earning
more money than women, nor did they raise the question of why
teachers made less money than administrators.
The participants acknowledged that the principal is in a
position of authority and in this role wields power over people’s lives.
Certainly this power is tempered by many factors, including policies
and law. Regardless, the participants in the research study did not view
themselves as subordinate to the principal, even though they
recognized that the principal was the person charged with providing
leadership for the school. On the one hand, teachers indicated that they
were the ones doing the important work in the classroom and they
could have a voice without having to be the one to deal with the
numerous challenges that arise. On the other hand, with the exception
of one, the participants shared that they were not motivated by money,
nor did they really question the fact that school administrators made
more money than teachers, which could be related to the fact that
many of them believed they their role as teachers was more gratifying
than the role of principal. Nonetheless, money was not a point of
resistance for the majority of them.
Subjectivity
Subjectivity is socially produced and is a changing process.
Grogan (1996) states, “The point is that until individuals come to see
how they have been constituted by the discourse in which they have
been immersed, they can only reflect upon their actions in those terms
the discourses make available to them” (p.37). As these teachers tried
to imagine themselves in the role of the principal, they had difficulty
conceptualizing a position that removed them from the classroom.
This fact was apparent in the comments that many participants made
about the possibility of moving into school administration. Kim
Dorsey thought that she might consider school administration if she

didn’t have to give up the classroom, “because that’s the most positive
contact you can have with kids.” Likewise, Teresa Vrack said she
would want to teach at least one class if she were ever a principal.
Rhonda Waters said that she would probably consider school
administration if she could still teach a couple of classes, noting that
this would be the ideal situation. Patricia Cabby stated, “If I could be a
principal, I would have to be in the classroom. I would probably
aggravate the teachers because I would be in the room helping with the
students. I’m more hands-on with the children.” Patricia shared that
she had been a summer school administrator and though she felt it
gave her a better perspective of what school administrators actually
do, the experience also solidified her belief that the classroom was the
place for her.
Lana Adders somewhat supported this point by noting that she
would possibly consider going into administration “if I really got
burned out in the classroom. If I just did not want to teach kids
anymore, if I didn’t want to be around them.” It is interesting to note
that she viewed school administration as far removed from children,
indeed so far removed that school administration is a career option for
teachers who no longer wanted to interact with children.
In comparing male and female principals, Kim Dorsey made an
interesting comment that shows the interaction of language,
subjectivity, and power.
You can get a lot of things done with a male principal that
I think are tougher sometimes to get done with a female
principal…One of the things that I have learned is that you
can either use your femininity to stop something from
happening or you can use it to make something happen. I
think a lot of times we (women) shoot ourselves in the foot
by using it to make something not happen.

She later elaborated that it was important to “remember that in society
we still play male and female roles.” She gave the example of “being
sweet and kind” and “letting them (male principals) come up with the
idea themselves and planting the seed” for getting something done.
She added, “It’s not that you’re playing stupid; you’re letting them be
in control. If we don’t do that, we don’t get what we want
sometimes…. I hate to say it, but if you stroke an ego, they’re going to
perform for you.” She contrasted this with a previous female principal,
stating that you didn’t have to “play the gender role” because this
principal was a “straight shooter.”
The relationship between subjectivity and discourse is closely
intertwined because discourse shapes subjectivity. The participants in
this study indicated that their subjectivity was constructed around the
discourse of teaching and for the most part, they had difficulty
imagining themselves in roles that removed them from teaching and
students. The consideration of gendered subject positions is especially
important for this particular study in light of the fact that the
respondents were all women teachers, and teaching was definitely a
part of their own gendered subjectivity.
Common Sense Assumptions
The way language, power, and subjectivity interact lead to
common sense assumptions about the way the world operates—the
way things are perceived to be by individuals. A common sense
assumption shared by the majority of the participants (sometimes
attributed to society) was that women are nurturers by nature. In this
sense, personal style was ascribed to what are perceived to be innate
qualities of women. This led many participants to the point that
women were perhaps better suited for working with children because
of their possession of nurturing, caring qualities, while men were more
“business-like,” more “driven,” more “logical,” making them more

suited for school administrative roles, especially at the middle and
high school level. A feminist poststructural perspective seeks to
challenge the somewhat implied universality of these characteristics.
For the majority of these women, the discourses available to
them were the discourses of teaching, partnering, and mothering;
therefore, these discourses contributed to their interpretations and
perceptions. Grogan (1996) ascertained that women aspirants to the
superintendency are constituted by conflicting discourses, leading to a
disjuncture between the male-dominated school administrative
discourse and the discourse of motherhood and partnerships. The
participants in this study did not face this conflicting discourse
because they viewed the discourse of teaching compatible to the
discourse of home responsibilities.
Social meanings favor the interests of different social groups.
This point is illustrated by the fact that these women, for the most part,
did not conceive of themselves in different professions if they had the
opportunity to make different career choices. Pat Riles, a relatively
young teacher, commented, “If I were to do it all over again, I’d be
right here again…” However, she also pointed out that she did not
know that she would be in the classroom for 30 years, perhaps her own
internal point of resistance.
With the exception of two participants, career choices that
were different from teaching were still care-taking careers, including
psychology/counseling in the school realm and health-related careers
targeting children. Although she stated that she would not go back to
school, Lana Adders commented that she would have really enjoyed a
career in a health field, but “it definitely wouldn’t be a money-maker;
it would be something for kids to get involved in.”
Those who did reveal a totally different career preference
shared their preference with a sense of wistfulness. Barbara Fitz,
almost at the end of her teaching career, stated, “I probably would do
something that’s quieter, a little more peaceful. I would want to do

something for somebody who cares about details and that is
respected,” such as the law. “That kind of thing would probably be a
good profession for somebody of my temperament who likes the
details, and this and this leads to this. That’s not something I ever
would have considered at the time I was out of school.”
One common sense assumption the participants revealed was
the idea of women as nurturers and the appropriateness of nurturing
for women and for teachers. This point is exemplified by the fact that
the majority of the participants stated that they would opt for the same
career given the opportunity to make different choices. Of course, it is
entirely possible that as teachers, the participants enjoyed a high
degree of job satisfaction; however, it is provocative to consider the
possibilities that a feminist poststructural lens might offer. Teaching
continues to be a field that is dominated by women and certainly it is
not a career that is financially well compensated. In many regards,
teaching has not been recognized as a profession. Operating from the
common sense assumption that teaching is “appropriate” for women,
this decision to remain in teaching might indeed be related to the
participants’ view of what is natural and fitting without considering
the gendered hierarchy of teaching.
Discussion
In utilizing the constructs of language, power, subjectivity and
common sense assumptions within a feminist poststructural
framework, the data analysis revealed that leadership-skilled women
teachers saw a great divide in the role of teachers and the role of
principals. This divide contributed to their reasons for choosing to
remain in the classroom, rather than seeking school administrative
positions. Grogan (2000) made a relevant point. “Teaching encourages
relationship building; administration recommends keeping distance”
(p.128). The participants in this study clearly believed that in their role
as teachers they were able to more positively impact the lives of
students in a personal way.

In her discussion of the structuralist foundations of educational
administration and leadership, Blount (1994) used the term “gendered
hierarchies” to explain that those with the power to define leadership
have “traditionally served a key role in maintaining and reifying
hierarchies” (p.59). Men (white) have traditionally retained the power
in the discourse of educational administration and in education in
general. In examining the discursive fields of the participants in this
study, it would appear that they are a part of the gendered hierarchy of
teaching, and within this hierarchy, men are still associated with
positions of authority.
Clearly, these teachers were at different points in their careers
as well as in their thinking about their own position in the educational
hierarchy. Regardless of years of experience, age, and level, these
women had at some point reflected upon their relationship with their
principal. Secondary teachers, unsurprisingly, had worked with male
principals more than female principals while elementary principals
were more familiar with females. They also were aware that in many
ways they were unique individuals in their respective school settings,
due in part to their leadership skills, as well as their dedication and
devotion to the students and classroom.
A negative perception the participants in this study had
regarding the role of the principal revolved around the compromise
that school administrators must often make between their family/home
lives and their professional lives. The interviews with the participants
suggest that this is much more of a concern for women than for men.
Weedon (1997) noted that the most powerful discourses in society
have firm institutional bases in, for example, education and the
organization of family and work. Certainly these two conflictual
discourses for women who do choose school administration lead many
women principals to struggle with balancing these two discourses.
Given the current expectations of the principal, this is not a
circumstance that is likely to change in the near future. As a result, it
may be difficult to encourage women teachers with leadership skills

appropriate for school administration to even consider leaving the
classroom, unless some changes are made in the way the role of the
principal is currently configured.
Based upon the interviews conducted for this research study,
the demands and responsibilities of the principalship provide no
incentive for qualified women to make a career move. In part this
decision to remain in the classroom was rooted in the participants’
perception of the conflicting demands and expectations of the
principal. This decision was also based upon the demands placed on
women principals who often contend with the competing discourses of
education and family. Grogan (2000) explained that in educational
administration primarily men have had the power to define practices.
It is apparent that the way the principalship is currently defined
discourages qualified candidates to consider school administration.
Indeed, Stover (2002) said, “Teachers look at the long hours,
marginally better pay, and greater accountability of a principal and
decide an upward career track just isn’t worth it” (p.40). In examining
the current status of education leaders, the Institute of Educational
Leadership (IEL) Task Force on Principal Leadership (2000)
concluded that state and local education systems must reject the
conventional model of the principal as a middle manager totally
responsible for every facet of school operations and performance.
They instead “must explore new arrangements of managing building
operations, such as through outsourcing and team leadership strategies
(p.19). This research study suggested that one possibility for recruiting
leadership-skilled women teachers to school administration would be
to restructure the job responsibilities, duties and expectations of the
principal.
One option for restructuring the principalship that is gaining
attention but that has been practiced only in localized and isolated
circumstances is co-principalships. This option has the potential to
effect change in the way the role of the principal is configured. In
arrangements such as this, two qualified administrators share the

principalship. Either all the responsibilities are evenly divided, or there
are two principals, one for instruction and one for management
(Shacter & Langer, 2002). It is this latter configuration of co-
principaling that would perhaps hold the greatest promise for
attracting qualified women teachers to consider upward career
movement. As principals of instruction, leadership-skilled women
teachers could maintain their connection to students and the classroom
and focus on impacting instruction.
Sharing the workload between two qualified principals would
possibly make the position much more attractive to qualified teachers.
Additionally, the two principals stand to be more effective leaders as
they work to carry out their delineated and minimized responsibilities.
Dividing the responsibilities of academics and management would
also mean that the time demands of the position would be less
intensive, allowing principals to achieve greater balance in their
personal and professional lives.
For women who are torn between the discourses of
motherhood and career advancement, co-principaling would possibly
lead to less conflict between the two. Indeed, this is exactly what two
women principals found when they opted to co-principal an
elementary school with 400 students (Brown & Feltham, 1997).
Finding that it was impossible to balance the responsibilities of
motherhood with the demands of running a school, both principals
agreed that co-principaling one school would be more compatible with
their present lifestyles and successfully worked out a plan to share the
principalship.
Not only do arrangements such as this have the potential to aid
in recruitment of candidates, they may also impact the retention of
practicing principals. Although there are many questions yet to be
answered regarding women’s ways of leading, based on the current
research, it appears that co-principaling would also be an option
suitable for leaders who practice distributive leadership.

In regard to the constructs of feminist poststructural theory, it
is important to note that restructuring the principalship as a co-
principalship would help to challenge the existing discourse of school
administration. Issues of power are also relevant as one considers
Foucault’s notion that power is implemented through discourse and
the “structure of discourse may serve either to silence or give voice to
subordinates” (Johnston, 1994, p.128). If the structure of the discourse
of school administration is ruptured by the implementation of co-
principalships, it may serve to give more voice and agency to teachers.
If the discourse of school administration changes, then there is also the
likelihood that the common sense assumptions that teachers have
about the principalship might also change.
Conclusion
Is it valuable to look at restructuring school leadership through
a feminist poststructural lens? This framework does indeed provide a
way to examine issues, but it is certainly not the only way, nor is it the
“best” way. What this theory encourages is the questioning of
established meanings, accepted values, and power relations, rather
than simply presuming their truth (Weedon, 1987). For people who
value looking at issues from multiple perspectives and disrupting the
“way things are done,” all the while keeping in mind issues of power,
then feminist postructuralism holds great promise for a
reconceptualization of the role of the principal.
The irony of research such as this study cannot go
unmentioned. It is almost paradoxical to encourage the talented
teachers to opt for a career in administration when they are so
desperately needed in the classroom. However, it is perhaps relevant to
consider the career path of teaching. Lortie (1975) noted almost thirty
years ago that teaching was “relatively ‘career-less’” in comparison
with other kinds of middle class work (p.84). Despite changes in
societal perspectives about career conceptions in general, little has
changed in the field of teaching. Teachers are still expected to

complete their coursework, undergo preservice training, obtain
licensure and take a position that remains more or less unchanged for
the rest of their career (Peske, Liu, Johnson, Kaufman, & Kardos,
2001). By restructuring the role of the principalship, qualified teachers
may opt to remain in education and in the process enjoy more
satisfaction with additional challenges. Research that explores this
possibility may provide an impetus for acknowledging the necessity
for the professionalization of teaching, as well as the need for
encouraging leadership-skilled teachers to consider school
administration as a career option.

REFERENCES
Banks, C. (2000). Gender and race as factors in educational leadership
and administration. In The Jossey Bass Reader on
Educational Leadership (pp.217-256). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Blackmore, J. (1993). In the shadow of men: The historical
construction of Administration as a ‘masculinist’ enterprise. In
J. Blackmore & J. Kenway. (Eds). Gender Matters in
Educational Administration and Policy (pp.27-48). London:
The Falmer Press.
Black, S. (2001, September). A lifeboat for new teachers. American
School Board Journal, 188(9), 46-48.
Blount, J. (1994). One postmodern feminist perspective on
educational leadership: And ain’t I a leader? In S. Maxcy
(Ed.), Postmodern School Leadership: Meeting the Crisis in
Educational Administration (pp.47-60). Connecticut: Praeger.
Boulton, P. & Coldron, J. (1998). Why women teachers say ‘stuff it’
to promotion: A failure of equal opportunities? Gender and
Education, 10(2), 149-161.
Brown, S. & Feltham, W. (1997). Job-sharing the principalship.
NAESP Principal Online.
http://www.naesp.org/comm/p0597b.htm.
Brunner, C. (1997). Working through the ‘riddle of the heart”:
Perspectives of women superintendents. Journal of School
Leadership, 7(3), 139-162.
Capper, C. (1993). Educational administration in a pluralistic society:
A multiparadigm approach. In C. Capper (Ed.), Educational
Administration in a Pluralistic Society, (pp.7-31). New York:
State University of New York Press, Albany.
Capper, C. (1992). A feminist poststructural analysis of nontraditional
approaches in educational administration. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 28(1), 103-124.

DeFelice, M. & Schroth, G. (1999). Women in Texas who are
certified but not employed as administrators. Eric Issue:
RIEJAN2001 Clearinghouse no: SPO39337 Texas
ED443787.
Education vital signs. (1998, December). The American School
Board Journal, 184(8), A15, A28.
Educational Research Services. (1998). Is there a shortage of
qualified candidates for openings in the principalship? An
exploratory study. http://www.naesp.org/misc/shortage.html.
Fraser, N. & Nicholson, L. (1990). Social criticism without
philosophy: An encounter between feminism and
postmodernism. In L. Nicholson (Ed.),
Feminism/Postmodernism. (pp.19-38). New York: Routledge.
Gall, M., Borg, W. & Gall, J. (1996). Educational research: An
introduction. London: Longman Group, Ltd.
Grogan, M. (2000). Laying the groundwork for a reconception of the
superintendency from feminist postmodern perspectives.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 117-142.
Grogan, M. (1999). Equity/equality issues of gender, race, and class.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 518-536.
Grogan, M. (1996). Voices of women aspiring to the
superintendency. New York: State University of New York
Press.
Huberman, A. & Miles, B. (1998). Data management and analysis
methods. In N.Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and
interpreting qualitative materials (pp.179-210). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Ingersoll, R. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis
and wrong prescription, NASSP Bulletin, 86, 16-31.
Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is there really a teaching shortage? (Document
R-03-04). Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy
Consortium and The Consortium for Policy Research in
Education, University of Washington.
Institute for Educational Leadership, (2000). Leadership for student
learning: Reinventing the principalship. http://www.iel.org.

Johnston, B. (1994). Educational administration in the postmodern
age. In S. Maxcy (Ed.), Postmodern school leadership:
Meeting the crisis in educational administration (pp.115-
132). London: Praeger.
Lather, P. (1991). Feminist research in education: Within/against.
Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Marshall, C. & Kasten, K. (1994). The administrative career: A
casebook on entry, equity, and endurance. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative
approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
National Association of State Boards of Education (2000). Recruiting
new principals. Policy Update, 8(9), 1-2.
Northouse, P. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Olson, L. (2000, January). Finding and keeping competent teachers.
Education Week, 19(18), 12-18.
Olson, L. (1999, March). Demand for principals growing, but
candidates aren’t applying. Education Week 18(28), 1, 20.
Ozga, J. & Walker, L. (1995). Women in educational management:
Theory and practice. In B. Limerick & B. Lingard (Eds.),
Gender and Changing Educational Management, Second
Yearbook of the Australian Council for Educational
Administration (pp.34-43). Australia: Hodder Education.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd
edition. California: Sage.
Peske, H., Liu, E., Johnson, S., Kauffman, D. & Kardos, S. (2001).
The next generation of teachers: Changing conceptions of a
career in teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(4), 304-311.
Sarup, M. (1993). An introductory guide to post-structuralism and
postmodernism. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.
Schacter-Boris, S & Langer, S. (February 6, 2002). Caught between
nostalgia and utopia. Education Week on the Web.
http://edweek.org/ew.

Scott, J. (1988). Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the
uses of poststructuralist theory for feminism. Feminist
Studies, 14(1), 33-50.
Shakeshaft, C. (1999). The struggle to create a more gender inclusive
profession. In J. Murphy & K. Louis (Eds.). Handbook Of
Research on Educational Administration (pp.99-118). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Shakeshaft, C. (1995). Gendered leadership styles in educational
organizations. In B. Limerick & B. Lingard (Eds.), Gender
and Changing Educational Management, Second Yearbook
of the Australian Council for Educational Administration
(pp.12-22). Australia: Hodder Education.
Shakeshaft, C. (1993). Gender equity in schools. In C. Capper (Ed.),
Educational Administration in a Pluralistic Society (pp.267-
287). New York: State University of New York Press.
Stover, D. (2002, December). Looking for leaders. American School
Board Journal, 189(12), 38-43.
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Williams, G. (1999). French discourse analysis: The method of post-
structuralism. London: Routledge.
Zheng, H. & Carpenter-Hubin, J. (1999). Exploring gender
differences in America’s school administrator workforce:
Statistical evidence from national surveys. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Canada.

Table 1: Participants’ Demographic Information
Pseudonyms Ethnicity Age
Bracket
Yrs. Of
Teaching
Experience
Type/Level
Of School
Marital
Status
Children
Katie Mills
African-
American 25-30 5 yrs
Urban
elementary Married No
Pat Riles Caucasian 25-30 5 yrs
Rural
elementary Married Yes
Teresa Vrack Caucasian 25-30 2 yrs
Urban
secondary Married No
Lana Adders Caucasian 30-35 16 yrs
Urban
middle Single No
Barbara Fitz Caucasian 55-60 28 yrs
Urban
middle Married Yes
Celie Chaps Caucasian 45-50 17 yrs
Urban
elementary Married Yes
Dottie Holt Caucasian 45-50 17 yrs
Urban
elementary Single No
Patricia Cabby
African-
Suburban
middle Married Yes
Dora Cobb Caucasian 50-55 28 yrs
Suburban
high Married Yes
Kim Dorsey Caucasian 35-40 10 yrs
Suburban
high Single No
Rhonda Waters
African-
Suburban
high Married No
Jan Moore
Native
Suburban
high Divorced Yes

Table 2: Participants’ Additional Duties, Degrees, and Honors
Pseudonym
Provision of
Instructional
Leadership
Mentor
Site-
Based
Member
Nat’l
Board
Cert.
Graduate
Degree
Other Honors/
Duties
Katie Mills Grade Level
Chair
yes yes no yes Leadership Academy/
Teacher of Yr.
Pat Riles Grade Level
Chair
yes no no no
Study Group
Leader
Teresa
Vrack
Team Leader no no no no
District Committee
Member/Coach
Lana Adders Co-Chair of
Department
yes no yes In
process
Coach
Barbara Fitz Co-Team
Leader
yes yes
(sb
chair)
yes no n/a
Celie Chaps none yes Yes
(sb
chair)
no In
process
Curriculum/ Budget
Committees
Dottie Holt Chair of Curriculum yes yes
(sb
chair)
yes yes n/a
Patricia
Cabby
Team Leader yes yes
(sb
chair)
no no After School
Program
Dora Cobb Department
Chair
yes yes
(sb
chair)
yes yes Teacher Council/
Teacher of Yr.
Kim Dorsey Department
Chair
yes yes yes no District Committee
Member/Coach
Rhonda
Waters
none yes yes no no
After School
Prog./Coach
Jan Moore Team Leader yes no no
In
process
District Committee
Member

Wynn brown

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (17)

Similaire à Wynn brown

Similaire à Wynn brown (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Wynn brown