Journal of K-12 Educational Research 45 Each dependent samples t-test yielded a pre-test mean, post-test mean, mean difference, p value, and an effect size. A summary of the results of the 21 dependent samples t-test are included in Table 2. If the p value was .05 or less, the null hypothesis was rejected, indicating a significant difference in the preassessment and post-assessment scores. An analysis of the mean rating on each of the leadership responsibilities on the pre-assessment indicated assistant principals perceived their highest level of competence in visibility (M = 4.40), followed by knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment (M = 4.20), discipline (M = 4.20), relationships (M = 4.20), and ideals and beliefs (M = 4.20). An analysis of the mean rating on each of the leadership responsibilities on the post-assessment indicated assistant principals perceived their highest level of competence in culture (M = 4.8), visibility (M = 4.7), knowledge in curriculum, instruction, and assessment (M = 4.7), discipline (M = 4.5), and ideals and beliefs (M = 4.5). Assistant principals perceived high levels of competence in visibility and knowledge in curriculum, instruction, and assessment, discipline, and ideals and beliefs in both the pre-assessment and post-assessment. Culture not only emerged as a top five leadership responsibility in the post-assessment but also resulted in the highest level of competence in the post-assessment. Optimize yielded the lowest mean in both the pre-assessment and post-assessment, indicating assistant principals perceived a low level of competence in this leadership responsibility throughout the aspiring principal program. The results of this quantitative data will be further explored in the qualitative portion of the study. The researcher used dependent samples t-tests to determine if the differences were significant. An analysis of the dependent samples t-tests indicated assistant principals reported significantly higher levels of competence on the post-test compared to the pre-test in the following leadership responsibilities: affirmation (M = 4.30, SD = .675), culture (M = 4.80, SD = .422), flexibility (M = 4.30, SD = .675), focus (M = 4.20, SD = .789), input (M = 4.40, SD = .699), knowledge in curriculum, instruction, and assessment (M = 4.70, SD = .483), monitor and evaluate (M = 4.10, SD = .738), resources (M = 4.40, SD = .699), and situational awareness (M = 4.30, SD = .675). These leadership responsibilities yielded a large effect size (d > .80), indicating a substantial change between the pre-assessment and post-assessment scores. The statistical data indicated there is a significant difference in assistant principals’ perceived level of competence in nine of the 21 leadership responsibilities after completing the aspiring principal program. Findings for RQ2 and RQ3 (Qualitative) Results from the quantitative data are used to inform the qualitative data analysis (Johnson & Christensen, 2020). The researcher conducted interviews to investigate RQ2 and RQ3. Table 3 summarizes the codes and themes for RQ2. The researcher sought to explore the perceptions of assistant principals about the impact of the aspiring principal program on their current leadership behaviors. Table 4 summarizes the codes and themes for RQ3. Aspiring principals explained that culture was discussed in every aspect of the program—learning activities, article studies, campus visits, leadership development training, interview practice activities, and the development of their 30-60-90-day entry plans. Participants were not surprised at these results, and reported culture was a leadership responsibility that is consistently modeled by the superintendent and central office leadership team in the District. They reported culture as being a critical component of the District’s identity. Implications The findings of the current study carry important implications for leadership preparation programs and the broader discourse on school principalship. RQ1 revealed that assistant principals demonstrated measurable growth in nine of 21 leadership responsibilities after completing the district’s aspiring principal program. However, the responsibilities of optimize (M = 3.60) and intellectual stimulation (M = 3.60) emerged as areas of weakness. This suggests that reliance on district-driven initiatives and limited program focus on these skills may hinder aspiring principals from independently developing the capacity to foster innovation and intellectual growth.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODc4ODgx