The Roles, Challenges, and Needs of Principal Supervisors: A Case Study

Abstract

A crucial component of boosting, maintaining, and improving school performance is instructional leadership. In order for instructional leadership to thrive, leaders must be thoroughly supported and well-trained in the best practices of supervision. This chapter dives into the initiatives that the Abu Dhabi Education Council (ADEC) launched over a decade ago in the United Arab Emirates to help principal supervisors grow from being traditional enforcers of district policy to being supervisors involved in helping their principals develop their instructional leadership practices. A case study design will be employed to investigate principal supervisors’ perceptions of their day-to-day operations in leading the principals to whom they are assigned. Three overarching themes, which derived from a thematic analysis of the interview findings, will serve as a guide for the presentation of information contained in this chapter: (1) the duties and responsibilities of principal supervisors, (2) the obstacles principal supervisors face in fulfilling their obligations, and (3) the circumstances principal supervisors require for optimal leadership performance. At the close of the chapter, the authors offer suggestions to improve principal leadership practices as well as implications for further research.

1. Introduction

It is now widely acknowledged by academics and educators that the caliber of school administrators matters. Educational union leaders and educational administrators from 23 top nations in educational performance shared this viewpoint at the 2012 International Summit on the Teaching Profession in New York City. They asserted that “leadership with a purpose” is essential for raising the performance of students ([1], p. 19). Successful principals have a significant effect on school improvement, teacher performance, and relationships among staff within the school [2]. Mendro found that “changing the principal is the quickest way to modify the effectiveness of a school, for better or worse” ([3] pp. 263–264). Additionally, the performance of schools is heavily dependent on elements like principal recruitment, employment, retention, and development [4]. However, educators cannot increase principal performance until they build meticulously planned evaluation methods that can distinguish between differentiated performance with unfailing precision [5].

Alkaabi made the case for reliable principal assessments that may weed out ineffective school leaders and help effective administrators mold their instructional leadership practices [6]. Principal evaluations are frequently used as a way to measure the impact of instruction on student achievement. Providing a solid, trustworthy, and efficient evaluation system also assists principals in pinpointing areas that require work and empowers them to decide on their own path of professional development to reach their optimal performance levels. However, without dependable, skilled, and committed supervisors who are sincerely devoted to assisting principals in learning throughout the assessment process, the full rewards of reliable and accurate principal evaluations cannot be fully reached [7]. Another study pointed out that the system for principal evaluation demanded more than simple adherence to leadership standards, tools, and rubrics; it called for the supervisor–principal pair to engage in effective and robust communication focused on accomplishing of the evaluation objectives [8].

Before delving further into the specifics of the principal supervisor, it is essential to understand the changes in role principals faced that made it necessary to hire principal supervisors. The role of principal has undergone significant modifications as a result of increased accountability initiatives over the past few decades [9]. Most notably, principals have transitioned from being managers to being instructional leaders who are responsible for student achievement [10]. In the educational setting, there is a distinct difference between principals who serve as managers and those who serve as instructional leaders. In the role of manager, the principal is engaged with daily operations within the school, general maintenance of facilities, budget oversight, and other logistical concerns. In the role of instruction leader, on the other hand, the principal focuses on the quality of education and other factors that play into improving student achievement.

The increased pressure and demands on principals have necessitated that modern principals incorporate several elements into their daily practices, including thinking like visionaries, leading their schools in matters of curriculum, critically evaluating teachers, managing faculty within the school, and enforcing policy initiatives and mandates [11]. Moreover, principals must maintain an attitude of continuous adaptation as their roles continue to evolve to meet newly surfacing demands in the educational landscape. For instance, it is incumbent upon principals to satisfy the rising challenges associated with high-stakes student testing and the higher standards outlined in educational reforms designed to enhance and develop the educational system. As principals’ roles change, it becomes increasingly imperative to put in place dependable, knowledgeable, and committed supervisors who are sincerely dedicated to assisting principals in their leadership development [7, 12].

2. The principal supervisor as support for principals in their professional development

Prior to 2015, the lack of guidelines for monitoring the activities of principal supervisors made it impossible to measure their effectiveness [13]. That began to change when the United States Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSCO) issued a set of national standards for principal supervisors in December 2015. These standards, the 2015 Model Principal Supervisor Professional Standards (MPSPS), were created and refined by the Wallace Foundation along with many other educators from across the nation [14]. They clearly defined expectations for what a principal supervisor should know and what leadership abilities they should have, shifting the emphasis to supporting principals in their schools. In addition, the guidelines clearly reflected the new definition of the role of principal as specified in the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders 2015, which was to foster collaboration between the district office and schools and increase the capabilities of district leaders [14].

CCSSO’s new standards transposed the position of principal supervisor from being entangled in bureaucratic compliance to being a position of assisting principals in their efforts to boost teaching and student learning in their schools [15, 16]. According to Bambrick-Santoyo, however, creating a new function alone was insufficient to properly adapt a focus on teaching and student learning; rather, the whole network needed to engage [17]. The principal supervisor’s main duty is to enhance instructional leadership [16, 18, 19]. A fresh approach for this position was presented by superintendent Barry Vitcov and educational consultant Gary Bloom in 2010. It was rooted in the belief that “supporting principals in developing their own leadership capacities will shape their schools’ cultures in ways that improve student outcomes” ([20] p. 1). Their research supported the notion that the development of the school principal was the principal supervisor’s most significant responsibility.

There are many references in the literature that highlight the importance of principal supervisors in the leadership development of principals [6, 21, 22]. Therefore, it is critical that principal supervisors possess a high level of expertise in pinpointing areas of need and creating customized training programs to help principals improve in those areas. The principal supervisor’s role must change from being a supervisor overseeing principals to being a coach working alongside principals to improve their capacity as instruction leaders [18, 19, 23, 24]. As principal supervisors give all their attention to coaching principals, principals will become better able to improve the capacity of teachers in the school who, in turn, will directly impact student achievement in a positive way. Simultaneously, principal supervisors may work at creating effective communication channels between schools and the central office, and improve their abilities as district leaders, both of which will help them better assist principals.

This study fills a gap in the literature as there is no research that comprehensively covers principal supervision, particularly during the period in which the United Arab Emirates (UAE) began instituting a new educational framework through the Abu Dhabi Education Council (ADEC). To determine the efficacy of the supervisory techniques set forth by ADEC in fostering professional learning among principals, thorough assessment and inquiry are required. This effort is crucial because exceptional schools require effective administrators, and effective administrators require strong support from those to whom they are accountable. As a result, it is necessary to look at how the new responsibilities defined by ADEC play out in principal supervisors’ actual practice, including the difficulties they encounter on a daily basis and the ideal circumstances under which the supervisory process can have the most profound effect on principals’ performance. To that end, the following three research questions were generated as guides for this study: What functions do principal supervisors currently perform? What obstacles do principal supervisors encounter in their regular supervision tasks? What are the prerequisites for creating long-lasting positive impacts on principal performance? In keeping these questions, the purpose of this research is to analyze principal supervisors as they supervise principals to clearly identify their roles, the difficulties they face, and the specific factors of the environment that contribute to a more ideal supervisory process for their assigned principals.

3. Methods

The authors chose to implement a qualitative inquiry design for this study because it best fit the purposes of the research questions and the nature of the study [25]. This study is situational in its contextual emphasis on the public school environment of one sizable district in Abu Dhabi; personalistic in relying on the examination of participating principal supervisors’ unique perspectives; and interpretive in its core essence. The qualitative methods employed by the researchers benefited them throughout the research process in similar ways to those outlined by Merriam and Tisdell: “in understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences” ([26] p. 6). In the context of the present research, qualitative research methods helped them grasp principal supervisors’ interpretations of their supervision and the meaning they gleaned from it.

Another characteristic of qualitative inquiry that contributed to the purposes of this study was its usefulness as an investigatory tool [27]. Through the use of qualitative inquiry, it was possible to continuously look into concepts and themes in order to discover the best explanations for the phenomena [28]. Qualitative research is allegedly superior to other forms of research in its ability to procure rich information about the phenomenon under study as well as recognize, investigate, and characterize its parameters [29]. A case study was chosen as a research method for this study. The case study is regarded by many, including Yin, as “one of the most challenging of all social science endeavors” ([30] p. 3). However, this technique fits with the goals and purposes of this study. Yin laid out the following definition for the case study: “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the case) in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident” ([30] p. 16).

In order to understand the duties of principal supervisors, the difficulties they encounter, and the ideal circumstances they require to improve their long-term leadership performance, the researchers conducted interviews as a primary means of gathering data. Three male and three female principal supervisors (six total) agreed to participate in semi-structured, in-person interviews. An overview of the characteristics of the principal supervisors is provided in Table 1, including gender, years of experience, assigned school level, and the number of principals assigned to them. Principal supervisors in the Al-Ain district had between 2 and 7 years of experience managing principals. Additionally, the principal supervisors oversaw a cluster of schools within their assigned level and were tasked with managing and evaluating a number of principals.

Participant	Gender	Years of experience as a supervisor	School level assigned	Number of principals assigned
Edward	Male	3	Primary	15
Khalid	Male	2	Middle	13
Bruno	Male	7	High School	16
Julia	Female	5	Primary	14
Emmy	Female	6	Middle	12
Mariam	Female	3	High School	10

Table 1.

Overview of principal supervisors (all names are pseudonyms).

3.1 Interviewing participants

According to Seidman, interviews are conducted to comprehend the experiences of others, not to test theories [31]. Kvale underlined the goal of qualitative interviewing as a tool to explain central themes in each participant’s universe [32]. However, in the process of gathering data through interviews, it is critical that the interviewer has a genuine interest in those whom they interview. That genuine interest should not be a simple statement at the beginning of an interview, but rather an interwoven part of the full interview process. In order to accomplish this, the interviewer must remove themselves from the spotlight and focus exclusively on the interviewee [31].

The researchers of this study conducted face-to-face interviews with each of the principal supervisors who participated. Each interview was approximately 2 hours in length, and the primary objective was to glean information about principal supervisors’ perspectives on their experiences while serving as supervisors to school principals. As Kvale recommended, the researchers of the present study came to the interviews prepared with a thorough familiarity with the literature on the topic [32]. Delving into the research about a phenomenon greatly reduces uncertainty before an interview and helps interviewers refine their question sets to include those that are most impactful.

All of the interviews in this study were semi-structured to maintain an easy flow of conversation with some leeway to adjust the course of the interview while remaining focused on the topic at hand. Semi-structured interviews give the interviewer freedom to propose additional questions that might supplement or supplant those that have already been decided upon, which provides a chance to examine a specific case more thoroughly [33]. Following the semi-structured format allowed the principal supervisors who were interviewed to be more creative in their responses and feel at liberty to elaborate on closely related topics that might prove beneficial to the comprehensiveness of the data. Furthermore, this structure allowed each principal supervisor to tell their story in their own words and describe their experiences thoroughly. The researchers planned the timing and location of each interview to accommodate the schedules of each principal supervisor. The researchers briefly introduced themselves and explained the interview’s purpose and objectives before the interview began. They used an IC recorder to electronically record each interview, which they later transcribed verbatim. They instructed the interviewees to choose the language they felt most at ease using to articulate their ideas and insights.

The researchers used a thematic analysis to find, examine, and describe the themes within the datasets collected from the interview transcripts [34]. Thematic analysis is used to organize qualitative data, untangle the twisted webs of data, and produce emerging themes to appropriately interpret them [35]. The thematic analysis made it possible for the authors to fully achieve the study’s purpose and respond to the research questions. Before beginning the data analysis procedure, however, the researchers familiarized themselves with the information by reading each transcript numerous times to fully grasp them. Then, from the transcripts of each interview, they created numerous codes that highlighted the patterns and discrepancies between the stories and experiences. The codes were then meticulously organized into appropriate categories with verbal examples from participants and quotes from the interviews for verification and corroboration.

4. Results and discussion

This study used in-depth interviews, field notes, and documents to investigate how principal supervisors perceive and experience their jobs, the difficulties they encounter, and the environment they need to have a long-lasting impact on their assigned principals and schools. The results revealed three themes and associated sub-themes, which were gleaned from the thematic analysis of the interviews with the participating principal supervisors. The three main themes were as follows: (1) the duties and responsibilities of principal supervisors, (2) the obstacles principal supervisors face in fulfilling their obligations, and (3) the circumstances principal supervisors require for optimal leadership performance.

4.1 Theme one: duties and responsibilities of principal supervisors

Principal supervisors have extensive roles in many larger school districts, managing an average of 15 schools and handling a wide range of administrative, logistical, and regulatory duties. The following sections are broken into sub-themes based on the new tasks and responsibilities of principal supervisors as described by the participants in the interviews.

4.1.1 Ongoing visits as opposed to sporadic visits from principal supervisors

All principal supervisors agreed that in order to expand possibilities “for learning and advancement,” their primary responsibility was to supervise, guide, counsel, and encourage their principals at each school level. Principal supervisors must visit the school frequently and communicate with the principal on a regular basis in order to accomplish this goal. With sincere dedication, the principal supervisor has an enormous opportunity to promote learning, speed growth, and develop the most successful version of each principal. In so doing, they guarantee that principal experiences have a beneficial impact on their schools.

Principal supervisor Bruno set three goals as part of his action plan for approaching the supervisory process: (1) “to mentor and coach principals to be better instructional leaders,” (2) “to provide differentiated professional development to build capacity and leadership,” and (3) “to support the school in increasing student achievement.” He included principals in the agenda-setting process as participating members, which enabled them to thoughtfully plan for meaningful, well-structured supervision sessions, and deliberately increase the motivation of principals as they engaged in a combined process of supervision planning. Bruno outlined his rationale:

Things I do with one principal are different from things that I do with another. It is totally based on their needs and interests. It is differentiated... We decide what we do, what we did previously, and what implications we found in the past. We decide what is going to happen next. It is collaborative... They are actually driving the conversation, not me. So, I have been able to take that step into what I know, to review, and prepare for the next visit with a focus.

Khalid, another principal supervisor, described his obligations as a supervisor in the following way:

The goal is to target struggling principals and improve them rather than weeding them out. This need [requires] the supervision to be dynamic, flowing in a cyclical process, with feedback collected during the formative and summative process. It is not a one-time event, but instead an ongoing process where improvement continues even after the final meeting.

Every supervisory visit was organized and tied to the one after it, which made subject streams more cohesive, engaging, and easy to follow. This allowed for consistent follow-up procedures to fill in the gaps between sessions and offer a progression that was constantly centered on learning. Principal supervisor Julia believed she could influence principal learning through her “regular visits to the school,” “direct interactions with the principals and school personnel,” and “continuous observations.” Principal supervisors must use their arsenal of skills and information from cumulative evaluations and consistent supervisory visits to develop focused, continuous, and individualized activities of professional development. Furthermore, such activities must be pertinent to the experiences of principals and their school circumstances in order to maximize learning in the school. Moreover, repeated visits are essential as supervisory frameworks are set up. To accomplish the supervisory objectives outlined at their initial meeting, principal supervisors must meet with their principals on a routine basis.

These results confirmed findings in the literature that supervisors who did not routinely set aside enough time to check on, observe, and evaluate the performance of their assigned principals ran the risk of undermining the efficacy of a procedure designed to give those principals the support they need to develop as leaders [6, 7, 21]. Regular meetings between principal supervisors and principals help the latter create a blueprint to define specific goals and objectives for their schools. With the right kind of consistent direction and support, principals can grow in their leadership abilities and as a result, advance school development.

4.1.2 Principal supervisors help principals develop their skills as instructional leaders

Principal supervisors stressed that in order to improve the quality of teaching, student academic achievement, and school performance, principals needed to be skilled in both instructional leadership and school management. However, they focused more on the “instructional leadership” component as it was what principals required most. As principal supervisor Julia noted, when leadership is focused on “improving instructional practices,” it positively “impacts student learning” and raises “student achievement.” Understanding this concept, she conducted critical observations both in and out of the school classrooms by evaluating the quality of the instruction, learning environment, level of student participation, atmosphere at the school, and interactions among teachers and administrators. Principal supervisor Bruno also conducted similar observations at his schools, stating:

I will participate in that with the principal and her teams ... go and collect data together ... come back to it, and then sit down and unpack what we found. And I listen very carefully to what they have done, then let the principal go first. Then, there is feedback, such as “That is exactly what I thought. That is what I saw. Have you considered what was happening in the classroom back at the corner here about such and such? Did you see that? Did you not see it? What does it mean?” The principal might say she found something I did not see, and so on.

Bruno felt this procedure produced a clear commitment to the development of instructional leadership. He demonstrated a strong dedication to principals’ “instructional leadership growth” by planning a series of “walk-through” observations that were immediately followed by mutual reflections with the principals to instruct them on how to more effectively observe, assess, and enhance the teaching techniques of teachers within their schools. Principal supervisor Emmy likewise emphasized the “instructional side” of the formative assessment, which provided a chance for principals to improve their instructional leadership capabilities, positively impacting teaching effectiveness and classroom learning.

The principal supervisors all paid special attention to the practices of instructional leadership in their supervisory strategies to guide principals toward achieving high levels of school performance, as stated in the individual principal supervisors’ examples. These results confirmed other findings in the literature, which suggested that principal supervisors could make a more significant contribution to their schools by actively scheduling time for instructional leadership training in their supervisory activities [7, 36].

4.1.3 Principal supervisors evaluating principals

Supervisors confirmed that they were accountable for planning for the end-of-year summative review, in addition to mentoring and guiding principals. During the year, they assessed the final results, overall performance, and leadership quality of the principals. At year’s end, at the summative evaluation, both the principal supervisor and principal met to discuss assessments in an honest and open manner on the day of the summative evaluation. Comparing the principal’s self-assessment with the preliminary evaluation of the principal supervisors and discussing inconsistencies between the two was the most challenging issue at this stage. As Bruno stated, “Everyone has a right to speak, defend, communicate, and voice concern—but not everyone has a right to be right.” Bruno made an effort to resolve ratings where there were major disparities by asking the principal to supply supporting documentation from their portfolio.

When the opinions of both the principal and principal supervisor on the self-assessment were mostly in agreement, the summative evaluation took only a half-hour. However, 2 or 3 hours were needed to finish the evaluation when findings varied and there were significant disagreements. Principal supervisor Maria elaborated on situations in which the principal and principal supervisor had diverging views:

In the case of disagreements with the principal, then you are certainly free to explain why you think it should be something different. If there has been something that a principal supervisor had either forgot about or was unaware of, a principal supervisor might change his mind or say, “We feel that we have not seen what you are talking about.”

Thorough conversations about the self-evaluation gave principals and principal supervisors a chance to elaborate on their comments and share their perspectives. The summative review was not a tough process, as nearly every supervisor repeated, because they had spent the whole year observing their leadership and tracking their development throughout the designated supervisory period. The summative evaluation’s findings provided the principals with feedback on their development. As highlighted by principal supervisor Edward, individualized feedback was given at the summative evaluation as opposed to generic criticism so that every principal was aware of every facet of their operational performance. Feedback scores in all categories then served as a roadmap for principals’ future development and implementation of change at their institutions to raise the bar for their evaluation performance.

As the findings in the literature suggest, supervisors have the right to carry out the assessment process and ultimately rate principals on their leadership abilities. The assessment process is more about creating a path for principal leadership development rather than just providing comments and reports [6, 37]. In addition, supervisors can use the evaluation results to provide principals with a chance for professional growth, either individually or in groups, with other principals who have similar needs.

4.1.4 Principal supervisors as a key mediator between the central office and schools

All but one principal supervisor considered their secondary responsibility as supervisors to be acting as a “liaison” between the central office and the schools, informing principals of “recent updates and policies,” and monitoring the flow of “daily school operations that aligned with the district agenda.” However, this role of liaison obstructed the planning process for some principal supervisors, such as Julia. She explained:

[There are] a lot of administrative details as a liaison between the district and schools. A lot of time is spent on this aspect. For example, at the beginning of the year, they [schools] are missing teachers, so I have to deal with it ... and I have to go back to ADEC headquarters and push that through the system. This morning, the principal had [an] ... issue with the parent of a special needs student. [Now,] I need to go back to headquarters and push that through the system ... so a lot of liaison [activity]. You will have to prioritize things and delay your plan

A large portion of Julia’s time was spent on managerial chores and administrative concerns, including exam preparation, parent grievances, issues between teachers and students, and other matters that fell more under the responsibilities of the principal. It became an urgent rush to be ready for school inspections, so Julia attempted to set additional time to make sure those schools were ready for the specific areas the inspectors were looking into. She stated, “I have one school that is being inspected, so of course I am going to be in that school more right now. I have three schools this year that are being inspected.”

Principal supervisor Bruno mentioned that on days he spent with principals, he would routinely go back to the central office to handle several concerns affecting his schools. Bruno handled a variety of administrative issues, including complaints from parents, student enrollment problems, budgeting concerns, absentee teachers, scarce resources, special needs matters, and other troubles. He, like the other principal supervisors, effectively acted as a go-between for the district office and the school. Principal supervisors Mariam and Khalid stressed additional duties, such as updating principals on new regulations and procedures, and reporting underperforming instructors and parent complaints to the central office.

Some studies have claimed that supervisors have a full workload of administrative tasks despite the transition of principal supervisors toward being primarily instructional leaders [18]. Principal supervisors still often serve as mediators who contact schools to make sure their performance is in line with the criteria of the central office. However, given the conflicting demands of the central office, such as policy meetings, planning, and administrative oversight tasks regarding school operations, principal supervisors are often limited in their ability to mentor and support their assigned principals [18, 21, 23].

4.2 Theme two: obstacles principal supervisors face in fulfilling their obligations

Principal supervisors can assist their principals in various ways, including mentoring, coaching, and guiding them as they deal with the numerous difficulties associated with running a school. Unfortunately, there are many districts that do not take full advantage of the uniquely impactful position that principal supervisors hold. As a result, the principals in those districts may struggle with many additional obstacles that could have been otherwise swiftly dealt with or avoided altogether with the skilled guidance of a supervisor. On the other hand, if the principal supervisor and principal carefully address issues together, obstacles can become opportunities for developing leadership practices and strengthening the supervisory relationship. In real-world practice, this does not come without difficulties, and the challenges from principal supervisors’ side of the equation are often overlooked. The principal supervisors interviewed in this study revealed several difficulties and impediments they faced in carrying out their responsibilities. These impediments all fell within the following three areas: (1) vague guidelines and lacking standards of practice, (2) excessive time expended on administrative issues; and (3) the absence of professional development.

4.2.1 Vague guidelines and lacking standards of practice

Principal supervisors reaffirmed their strict compliance with their “job description as a guide.” However, they added that no formal criteria or rules were given to serve as a foundation for their practice. The lack of rules and largely unrestricted freedom to perform their duties as they saw fit often made it harder for them to do their jobs. This was particularly true of supervisors who did not have the necessary skills to provide effective supervision. For example, principal supervisor Khalid stated, “We do not have professional standards … like the ones school principals have, though we have some meetings that ... feed into some new policies or direction toward our job.” Several other principal supervisors echoed Khalid’s sentiments.

One positive aspect of district-granted autonomy was the ability to create the customized supervision that each principal required. Principal supervisor Mariam affirmed, “We have a greater degree of autonomy in decision-making regarding constructing supervision in the formative process... At the same time, there is no obligation for supervisors to make common decisions. It is not a goal to fully comply with supervisory structures.” She reiterated that supervisors should design customized supervisory frameworks to meet the individual needs of their assigned principals, but it is necessary to set some fixed standards and norms. Given the correct balance of these two elements, principal supervisors can develop optimal development plans for their principals in an adequately consistent manner across the board.

In the current evaluation, the dearth of standards and norms, combined with complete freedom to set their own agendas, served as a double-edged sword. This combination either strengthened the supervision in the case of experienced principal supervisors or lead to catastrophe when the supervisors were inexperienced or ill-prepared to have such free rein. Undoubtedly, when placed in the hands of a novice and untrained principal supervisor, too much autonomy may result in significant issues. This result is not unexpected as several studies have stressed the importance of developing written rules to precisely define the tasks and duties of principal supervisors and set up a structure to continually direct their focus toward the highest standards [7, 21, 29, 38]. According to the study, principal supervisors’ duties are changing to place a greater focus on instructional leadership [18]. Nonetheless, districts must explicitly identify administrative and supervisory functions as well as the skills expected of supervisors holding these jobs.

4.2.2 Excessive time expended on administrative issues

Principal supervisors who participated in interviews for this study were prompted to discuss some of the administrative pressures and tasks that they faced. Principal supervisor Bruno explained how he often came across emergency management situations and did his best to resolve them quickly and make an effort to offer practical remedies. He provided an illustration of how he handled these pressing circumstances:

Sometimes, I am urgently called for administrative matters. For example, I had an email from a principal to see me urgently. I replied, “Tell me about the situation. Why do you need to see me?” and “Okay, I can be there on Thursday morning.” I clearly recognized the stressful situations when I was a school principal. It is amazing what happens ... Let them know about things I know that actually remove that stress, and then you can make better decisions. And so you get somebody’s trust where you can talk those things through…

In agreement with Bruno, principal supervisor Julia underlined the importance of supervisors’ accessibility and presence for principals. However, Julia cautioned that doing so came with a significant cost to instructional leadership. Principal supervisor Emmy also described a number of pressing circumstances in which she worked with principals to address difficulties that required serious consideration and focused attention. Principal supervisor Khalid added that principal supervisors had no choice but to pay attention to operational matters in spite of the heavy emphasis placed on their role as instructional leaders. He noted:

This is inevitable… that we have to look into administrative issues… If a principal calls and asks for help about school routine issues, like parent complains, testing, school finance, regulations, and polices … we give them consultation … And in most cases, we visit schools to solve those matters … It is part of our job to smoothen things up and solve issues that principals might face and have no clue how to solve.

The principal supervisors recognized that over the past 10 years, their roles and duties had changed considerably from being traditionally enforcers of district policy to being supervisors involved in helping their principals develop their instructional leadership practices. Notwithstanding, the accounts of principal supervisors revealed that there was a strong need to handle the day-to-day concerns principals had about their school and be present on site. However, they also acknowledged that establishing instructional leadership as a focus was the most valuable investment they could make to improve the overall success of their schools and student achievement.

Collaboration with the central office was another responsibility principal supervisors identified as cumbersome. They struggled to find time to visit their schools on a regular basis because of the intense duties required by the central office. The literature is replete with the assertion that if supervisors are only concerned with the administrative responsibilities of principals, they afford minimal benefits to schools [39]. Researchers concur that it is crucial to bind instructional leadership to supervision and prevent administrative duties from being shrouded [6]. Honig and Rainey, who researched the behavioral patterns of principal supervisors for nearly 10 years, further contended that it would be preferable for principal supervisors to delegate the managerial and logistical concerns to other capable individuals so that they could fully concentrate on assisting principals as they ensured high-quality instruction and learning for all students [22].

4.2.3 The absence of professional development

“No PD [is] specifically designated for principal supervisors,” principal supervisors Khalid and Julia emphasized. In place of professional development, principal supervisors “regularly meet together to discuss certain elements,” such as standards for the principal evaluation process, requirements, professional development, and everyday difficulties that other principal supervisors are experiencing. By doing so, they exchanged information, monitored the condition of their schools, heard opinions from other supervisors, and addressed relevant issues. While this group collaboration was beneficial in some ways, principal supervisor Julia still felt that the district office should provide “ongoing professional development for principal supervisors” in relation to their fundamental responsibilities of “providing feedback,” “coaching,” “supervising,” “asking questions,” and “mentoring.”

According to principal supervisor Maria, the district office only invited “people from different divisions to speak at set meetings to enlighten ... [them] about changes in curriculum, assessments, and district policies.” However, without professional development, principal supervisors were left to strictly follow their “job description” as a manual for their practice. In addition, they relied heavily on self-reflection in an attempt to improve upon their practices and become more effective as supervisors. Principal supervisor Edward concluded that principal supervisors worked on developing their practices at varying degrees. Principal supervisor Bruno added his perspective as well:

From [the] onset of our job as principal supervisors, we have not been taking any professional development. And most of our staff [principal supervisors] comes from different countries, cultures, and experiences … all shaped by different educational systems and having different experiences. While this could be beneficial, it also leads to variations and gaps in performance in supervision and evaluation. It is highly important to offer professional development for all principal supervisors.

According to Bruno, professional development was a crucial link in the improvement process. He asserted that just as principals participated in continual training to help them better manage their schools, principal supervisors should have the opportunity to do the same to help them better oversee their principals. Principal supervisors need continual professional growth to be able to provide high-quality supervision with devotion and drive. Principal supervisor Emmy explained, “Well-developed and structured PDs will enable us to maintain competence, become aware of current trends and practices, and assist in providing quality services.” She concluded that principal supervisors ran the risk of stagnation without ongoing professional development.

The literature contained mixed results regarding how common it was for districts to provide professional development for principal supervisors. One study [40] reported on a few districts that did offer professional development while others [6, 23, 36] found that some districts offered none. Principal supervisors may have significant struggles due to personal shortcomings and a lack of supervisory expertise in districts where no professional development is provided. Moreover, insufficient skills when performing supervisory duties affects not only the educational programs, but also the whole process of supervision and evaluation. Goldring et al. cautioned districts to strike a balance between what they expected from their supervisors and their actual capabilities, offer differentiated assistance, foster a system of consistent professional standards, and establish robust professional development [7].

4.3 Theme three: circumstances principal supervisors require for optimal leadership performance

The successful integration of supervision in the principal evaluation process proved to be highly dependent on principal supervisors, as demonstrated across many cases in the literature. Participants in the present study highlighted four routine practices that enhanced the learning and growth experiences of principals: (1) approaching the evaluation as an ongoing process, (2) preparing for each supervisory session, (3) providing a supportive and non-threatening learning environment to stimulate principal learning, and (4) delivering differentiated and actionable feedback to enhance principals’ leadership capacity.

4.3.1 Approaching the evaluation as an ongoing process

Participant principal supervisors noted that when they addressed the evaluation as a changing and continuous process, as opposed to an “occasional episode” or “one-time event,” learning benefits were tenfold increased. “Supervising principals is not a static, one-time event! It is a continuous effort that keeps going in a cycle without ending,” principal supervisor Edward exclaimed. Supervisors Khalid and Mariam also added that principal supervisors needed to follow up on their commitment to regularly supervising, monitoring, and tracking the growth of their assigned principals. They maintained that these procedures allowed the evaluation process to proceed smoothly and fulfill its ultimate objective of principal improvement.

Principal supervisor Bruno used the following metaphor to describe the differences between the formative and summative evaluations: “When the chef tastes a dish, it is formative; but when it comes to guests tasting it, it is then summative.” He continued by explaining that the formative phase was a process of change that offered principals useful information to identify their qualities and shortcomings and adapt along the way toward the final evaluation at the end of the year. Bruno explained, “Even with this summative wrapping up the evaluation process, it is still going to be formative in a way … after report and feedback is provided, enabling them to take actions to improve their performance next year.” He believed that both the formative and the summative evaluations should coexist but that the goals and purposes of “formatively looking forward and summatively looking back” were better kept apart.

Principal supervisors can track the development of principals, spot weaknesses in their leadership behaviors, and offer ongoing feedback for growth by treating the evaluation as a changing and continuous process instead of a “one-time event.” According to Parylo et al. [37], principals integrated what they learned from evaluations when it was a continuous, adaptable, and engaged process. Consequently, principals worked much harder to meet the demands of their schools. Alkaabi [6] additionally emphasized that without a supporting system that incorporates constant, developmental, and differentiated supervision, principals did not significantly improve or advance.

4.3.2 Preparing for each supervisory session

It is important to note that the visits principal supervisors in this study had with their assigned principals were thoroughly planned and organized with the aim of strengthening their “leadership capacity.” They were never haphazard or random meetings. Principal supervisors Mariam and Julia both stressed the need to plan ahead for every supervisory meeting in order to establish a meaningful link between visits. The meetings were “connected,” “seamless,” and “engaging,” enabling routine follow-ups to fill in the missing pieces between sessions and maintaining a constant emphasis on learning. Julia firmly asserted that sporadic visits and impromptu oversight did school principals no good. Principal supervisor Edward also added his supporting thoughts:

As a supervisor, you should be prepared to give help on problems of concern to the principals. You should be prepared beforehand about your visit and review the school data and set priorities you will … [touch] on once your foot [is] on the school ground so that your supervisory visit is meaningful and achieves its goal. Otherwise, your visit is futile, and you are not doing your job!

As Edward stressed in his remarks, effective supervision requires thorough planning if it is to be helpful. Learning in “unprepared sessions” was subject to blunders and on-the-spot improvization. Principal supervisors observed that preparation required a significant amount of work, but that the benefits were immeasurable, particularly if the sessions were tailored to the specific needs of the principal. Goldring et al. [7] came to a similar conclusion in his findings, which highlighted that principal supervisors who were committed to keeping detailed notes about their meetings with principals were able to create steady improvement in their principals as they progressed in a connected and organized way. Goldring et al. [7], as well as the participating principal supervisors of the present study, found great value in being able to follow a thoroughly cohesive stream of feedback, goals, and actions.

4.3.3 Providing a supportive and non-threatening learning environment to stimulate principal learning

A structured environment that supports and encourages learning is yet another essential component of an effective evaluation cycle. The majority of participants believed that creating the type of atmosphere required for supervisory meetings was mostly the responsibility of the principal supervisor. They saw the creation of a safe atmosphere in which “mistakes [were] part of the learning process and relatively unimportant” as critical element of the evaluation process. During the individual interviews with principal supervisors, participants repeatedly noted that productive collaboration and learning during supervisory sessions was nonexistent when the environment was hostile or unsupportive.

Another consideration in setting the stage and tone for supervisory meetings is the personality and developmental level of the principals. Principal supervisor Maria recalled some principals who needed extra guidance and support while others felt more comfortable going about their business independently. In sessions with the most independent principals, Maria would allow them some additional space to make mistakes on their own to help them realize the value of being receptive and not overly confident in their ability to function alone. She expounded on the value of creating a non-threatening environment:

If I cannot get them to understand why their next move is incorrect with my advice ... sometimes, I have to let them follow that path, an experience of failure for them to understand... Because if I say you must do it this way, then they will still be thinking I was wrong, that it would be better if we had done it this way. Sometimes, you have to let them learn from their mistakes.

Principal supervisor Julia told her principals before every session, “This is your opportunity to be yourself and feel comfortable in sharing weaknesses and mistakes.” She also underscored the value of establishing a secure environment where principals could be pushed while receiving guidance and assistance along the way. This sort of environment fostered “transparency,” uncovered “weaknesses,” and allowed for “emotional support” and “trust.” Principal supervisor Bruno found that supervision was more effective when it was not a coercive activity; rather, it should be geared toward principal learning. “Non-threatening,” yet “challenging” and “stimulating” supervision, is key to facilitating participation and engagement throughout the process of evaluation. Parylo et al. [37] also supported the notion that safe, non-threatening environments helped principals be more at ease, encouraged beneficial communication, and built trust.

4.3.4 Delivering differentiated and actionable feedback to enhance principals’ leadership capacity

Principal supervisor Julia provided her principals with “trustworthy feedback that was based on data ... [and] rigorous analysis,” which she generated from continual observations, dialogs, and tracking their leadership practices from month to month. This enabled her principals to follow up with specific measures to overcome their weaknesses instead of “[leaving] them with the evaluation rubric’s behavioral summaries.” Otherwise, the behavioral summaries would typically be reviewed independently by the principals, but the small amount of information was not enough to create an improvement plan. “I ask all principals, without exception, if they want extra time or an additional meeting to discuss in detail their performance and feedback,” Julia stated.

All participating principal supervisors were conscious of the value and significance of providing feedback to their assigned principals, including praising their successes. Principal supervisors can utilize the formative assessment process as a potent tool to learn more about their principals and give them useful, differentiated, and actionable feedback so they can continue to develop their instructional leadership capabilities [6, 36, 41]. In addition, Parylo et al. implored evaluators to develop principal evaluation into “a continuous, transparent process” that encouraged “constructive feedback” and robust “dialog” to assist principals in enhancing their effectiveness as school leaders in a difficult era ([37] p. 235). However, the benefits of such feedback do not end with the principals; their development directly impacts their ability to help teachers within their schools, which in turn boosts student achievement.

5. Implications for policy, practice, and research

An increasing amount of research studies have recommended that districts and states establish principal supervisors to guide and support their principals in their responsibilities as instructional leaders [7, 21, 22, 23]. The present study showed that vague and underdefined standards and norms for principal supervisors can act as a double-edged sword in the evaluation process, leading to either fruitful or disastrous experiences of supervision. When clear standards and roles are lacking, principal supervisors are left with an ambiguous collection of generic activities itemized in their job descriptions [6, 7]. To avoid this pitfall, a set of standards for the professional practice of principal supervisors should be developed by policymakers and district officials to clearly represent their functional requirements. The work of principals would change as a result, and their principalship would improve. Additionally, this would hold principal supervisors accountable to assist their principals in enhancing the fundamental aspects of teaching and learning. Such a strategy would also mark a significant turning point in the evaluation process and serve as a replacement for ineffective or arbitrary practices.

Regarding professional development, school districts should offer continual training that strengthens the ability of principal supervisors to lead and evaluate effectively. Of the six principal supervisors who took part in this study, none had the necessary assistance or training to handle the complicated and demanding landscape of the principal evaluation. Principal supervisors’ expertise and ability are maintained through well-designed and -organized professional development that keeps them informed of industry changes, best practices, and trends; enables them to collaborate and learn from colleagues; and guides them to become highly effective supervisors. To bridge the disparity between principal supervisors and improve their leadership and evaluation capabilities, professional development is critical. In light of this, greater effort must be made to offer sufficient training and professional development programs for them [6, 7, 16, 18, 22, 23].

Future research might follow a similar pattern to that of the present study, but include a larger participant pool that includes principals in addition to principal supervisors. It might compare the unique viewpoints of both sides of the supervisory relationship to further explore motivating factors for principal growth. Future research might also use multiple observations to reinforce the methodology and produce even stronger findings, perhaps even triangulating the data across several data collection methods to gain a better picture of the phenomenon. A comparative study might also be of use to provide insight into supervisory practices and norms in all seven emirates of the United Arab Emirates. It could delve further into what practices are most effective and proven in real practice by measuring their impact on the development of principals in a given area(s). This could provide powerful information that district authorities would be able to review and incorporate into future supervisory strategies and standards of practice across the board. The benefit of this kind of comparative study could be even further enhanced by conducting the study over a longer period, perhaps 4 years, to measure the impact over time.

Finally, school districts should clearly define concise and measurable goals for principal supervisors that align with district goals. Principal supervisors have an abundance of responsibilities, including administrative duties, professional development activities, district office obligations, and perhaps most importantly instruction leadership charges. Regardless of how well principal supervisors balance their various roles, their central task of supervision is often compromised, sometimes extensively. If school districts implemented and enforced the instructional leadership and supervisory roles of principal supervisors, it would open a great deal of possibility for the improvement and development of their assigned principals and their respective schools. Central offices might even hire separate personnel to deal with administrative and technical matters to leave principal supervisors free to fully dedicate themselves to the development of their principals.

6. Conclusion

As noted by the participants, the past 10 years have seen a dramatic shift in the duties of principals. Traditionally, the role of principal was filled with managerial, administrative, and financial tasks. Now, principals are primarily tasked with serving as instructional leaders to the teachers and students under their purview. These changes in their roles consequently demand a higher caliber of principal supervisors to prepare them to be able to fulfill their responsibilities in a way that maximizes quality teaching and student achievement. The principal evaluation process, particularly the formative portion can serve as an excellent medium for delivering careful mentoring and professional development to principals. During the formative evaluation, the principal supervisor can provide actionable, differentiated, and effective feedback to guide principals through a course of action that will directly improve their leadership capabilities.

When principals participate in the formative evaluation, they begin to see the improvement process as a continuous and adaptive process that is more than just a one-time event. This allows them to continually identify and improve upon areas of weakness in supervisory sessions with their principal supervisors. Alkaabi [6] found that principals were unable to improve in substantial ways without a solid structure that incorporated a developmental and consistent approach to the formative evaluation to prepare them for the summative evaluation at the end of the year. His conclusion followed the assertion that evaluation and supervision are intertwined in a cyclical process where regular formative activities set the stage for the summative review, which in turn provides an overall view of where the next formative segment should pick up.

The findings of this chapter shed light on the current responsibilities of principal supervisors, highlighting the obstacles they face in their day-to-day work at the school and the long-lasting effects they can have on the professional behaviors and practices of their assigned principals. In order to produce the desired best outcome of the supervisory relationship, the quality of principal leadership requires continuous checking and oversight. Without strict oversight, school administrators are bereft of the direction they need to fast-track their careers and discover opportunities to build on their prior teaching experiences. After all, the backbone of the principal evaluation process is the principal supervisor, who ensures principals are robustly equipped with effective and adaptable instructional leadership capabilities. As principal supervisors are the primary catalyst for improvement, school districts should spare no effort in finding highly skilled and experience supervisor who have a deep passion for cultivating the best in principals, who can then create excellent schools.