682575

research-article2017
UEXXXX10.1177/0042085916682575Urban EducationPeters-Hawkins et al.

Article
Urban Education
2018, Vol. 53(1) 26­–54
Dynamic Leadership © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Succession: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0042085916682575
Strengthening Urban journals.sagepub.com/home/uex

Principal Succession
Planning

April L. Peters-Hawkins1, Latish C. Reed2,

and Francemise Kingsberry3

Abstract
The Dynamic Leadership Succession model is used to analyze a leadership
succession case in an urban school district. The qualitative findings show
that the district did not forecast school leadership needs well; however,
the principal sought to develop and mentor teacher leaders as her assistant
principals. Second, sustaining efforts within the district were, at times,
haphazard, as demonstrated by the two study participants as they were
inducted into their respective roles of principal and assistant principal.
Finally, the district failed to deliberately plan for leadership transitions.

Keywords
urban education, leadership, urban school leadership, school succession
planning, Black school leadership, urban district leadership, urban high schools

The implementation of No Child Left Behind in 2002 increased accountabil-

ity pressures on principals. Principals in urban contexts often confront these

1University
of Georgia, Athens, USA
2MilwaukeePublic Schools, WI, USA
3North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA

Corresponding Author:
Latish C. Reed, Office of Innovation and Information, Milwaukee Public Schools, 5225 W. Vliet
Street, Milwaukee, WI 53208, USA.
Email: dr.lreed1922@gmail.com
Peters-Hawkins et al. 27

accountability pressures in environments plagued with myriad adversities.

For instance, principals in urban contexts often lead large populations of dif-
ferently abled students, support teachers who lack the cultural knowledge
necessary to teach urban youth, and operate despite low parental and com-
munity involvement. These principals are charged with providing an equita-
ble education to students with limited economic and social resources (Taylor
& La Cava, 2011). School and personal safety may be challenges in these
trying contexts (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014). Myung, Loeb, and
Horng (2011) explained that it is even more difficult to fill school leadership
and teaching positions in places where there are more non-White, poor stu-
dents, and students who do not speak English as a first language. Increasingly,
these demographics characterize U.S. urban public schools where the largest
learning gaps exist for students.
Juxtaposed to the tumultuous state of affairs in many urban schools,
research indicates that stability in school leadership is important because of
the relationship between effective, stable leadership, and student achieve-
ment (Garza, Drysdale, Gurr, Jacobson, & Merchant, 2014; Leithwood,
Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). Principal turnover in schools with
economically vulnerable students also contributes to teacher turnover
(DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; Fuller, Young, & Baker, 2007). Therefore,
leadership sustainability through effective succession planning serves to
improve student achievement and reduce both principal and teacher
turnover.
This qualitative case study examined current trends in school leadership
succession, and made the argument for a new direction in school leadership
succession utilizing the model of Dynamic Leadership Succession (DLS;
Peters, 2011). The DLS model advances a method that simultaneously
focuses on forecasting the organization’s future leadership needs, sustaining
those school leaders who are already in place through mentoring and provi-
sion of support, and planning for future leadership succession within the
organization.
School leadership succession planning can be understood as a deliberate
process undertaken within the organization to ensure a smooth transition as
leaders come and go. Effective succession planning efforts involve managing
knowledge and experience, saving costs to the organization, reducing staff
turnover, providing professional learning to employees, and keeping employ-
ees informed about opportunities (Fink & Brayman, 2006; Friedman, 1986;
Rothwell, 2011; Rothwell & Poduch, 2004; Schall, 1997; Trepanier &
Crenshaw, 2013).
Given the unsteady nature of urban school districts, Peters (2011) sug-
gested a model to ensure smoother school leadership succession planning in
28 Urban Education 53(1)

low-performing, unpredictable, urban school settings. In this theoretical anal-

ysis of an authentic case in school leadership succession, we seek to investi-
gate whether components of the DLS model exist in a district succession plan
implemented in a local high school. We explore the following research
questions:

Research Question 1: In a low-performing, urban school district, how do

the district leadership policies, strategies, and practices affect the imple-
mentation of leadership succession processes at the school level?
Research Question 2: What DLS elements are evidenced in the leader-
ship processes at the school and district levels? In what way(s) do the
experiences of a principal and assistant principal in an urban school reflect
the Dynamic Leadership Succession model as they engage in the succes-
sion planning process?

The Issue of Leadership Succession

The variables that impact leadership succession in an organization are both
contextual and complex (Drew & Ehrich, 2010). For example, approaches to
succession planning range from developing strategies to retain current lead-
ership in their positions for as long as possible (Hargreaves, 2009) to encour-
aging leaders, such as boards of trustees, to remain actively engaged and to
help shape the succession planning processes for new leadership (Fennell &
Miller, 2007) to creating a pool of leaders prepared to step into critical leader-
ship roles temporarily in the case of an emergency or other unexpected vacan-
cies (Rothwell, 2011). In what follows, we discuss the emergent literature
concerning planning priorities, principal turnover, and the challenges related
to school leadership succession.

Succession Planning Priorities

Though educational leadership at times borrows from the business literature
on leadership, there are some stark differences between the business litera-
ture and the educational literature on the topic of leadership succession.
While the business sector directs its attention to providing strategies that will
attract and develop internal talent pools (Cascio, 2011; Rothwell, 2011),
increase organizational performance (Friedman, 1986), and sustain innova-
tion (Rothwell & Poduch, 2004; Schall, 1997), and focuses primarily on the
needs of the individual leadership target (Boyne, James, John, & Petrovsky,
2011; Cascio, 2011; Fennell & Miller, 2007), this does not appear to be true
within many of the school-based succession plans.
Peters-Hawkins et al. 29

The educational literature suggests that in some districts, succession plan-

ning agendas may be in direct conflict with professional development plan-
ning for school leaders (Fink, 2010; Thompson, 2010). That is, succession
planning efforts may advantage the organization’s broader goals over the pro-
fessional goals of the individual. Often among school leadership succession
planners, any emphasis on the goals of the individual leader is subjugated to
the overall strategic plan of a school or school district. The contextual priori-
ties that exist in the public education system are school effectiveness, effi-
ciency and achievement goals, rather than the aspiring leader’s career goals
(Fink & Brayman, 2006; Hargreaves, 2009; Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006;
Thompson, 2010). Thompson (2010) held that such approaches discouraged
teachers and assistant principals from pursuing their career goals, thus imped-
ing effective leadership succession. Succession planning in school organiza-
tions is a heady task, considering the balance a leader must strike between the
implementing school/district strategic plan, ensuring student achievement
outcomes, and participating in preparing novices for the school leadership
pipeline. Leadership succession planning can create a reticence among poten-
tial school leaders, as such efforts (e.g., mentoring and shadowing programs)
can be viewed as contributing to their already excessive workloads (Simkins,
Close, & Smith, 2009). In addition, effective management of the complex
issues of improving school reputation can lead to successful school-commu-
nity partnerships, increased school performance-capital, and reduced inci-
dents of leadership attrition (Balser & Carmin, 2009; Khalifa, 2012).
However, incumbent leadership plays a unique role in succession planning
(Balser & Carmin, 2009; Fink & Brayman, 2006; Garza et al., 2014; Zepeda,
Bengtson, & Parylo, 2012). When school leaders choose to actively portray
their own passion for leadership, it can serve as a means to encourage aspi-
rant leaders. In addition, the incorporation of leadership learning and devel-
opment opportunities associated with school succession planning strategies
(i.e., talent pools and mentoring program) has assisted in the implementation
of concepts such as “grow your own” leaders (Drew & Ehrich, 2010; Zepeda
et al., 2012). Developing one’s own employees for succession has been a
practice that is embraced, as well as regularly implemented throughout cor-
porate and business contexts.

Principal Turnover
The role of the school leader has become more sophisticated, demanding, and
complex. Myung et al. (2011) asserted that in the era of increased school
accountability, the public has demanded more effectiveness of its school
leaders.
30 Urban Education 53(1)

Numerous sources concur that principals are linchpins for school

improvement (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Hammond, Muffs, & Sciascia,
2001; Leithwood, et al., 2004; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003). However,
although the need for effective leaders has intensified, many school dis-
tricts struggle to find qualified candidates to fill vacant school leadership
positions (Cooley & Shen, 2000; Fenwick & Pierce, 2002; Hammond et al.,
2001; Malone & Caddell, 2000; Whitaker, 2003; Winter & Morgenthal,
2002).
Principal shortage problems are particularly acute in certain types of
schools—namely, urban schools, schools serving high proportions of stu-
dents who are poor, non-White, or do not speak English as their first language
(Loeb, Kalogrides, & Horng, 2010). Principal shortages are also more com-
mon in high schools and middle schools than elementary schools (Whitaker,
2003). The time demands of the job and job stress associated with greater
accountability are often cited as deterrents to potential applicants (Pounder &
Merrill, 2001; Winter & Morgenthal, 2002). For example, several empirical
studies have examined retention and turnover rates of principals.
Ultimately, a number of structural barriers explain these phenomena.
Fuller and Young (2009) discovered that low retention of principals was
caused by a variety of factors including accountability pressures, the com-
plexity and intensity of the job, lack of support from the central office, and
low compensation. Leithwood et al. (2004) found that “on average, schools
experience fairly rapid turnover—about one new principal every three to four
years” (p. 22). Leithwood et al. (2004) further discovered that when principal
turnover was rapid, there was an adverse effect on school culture and student
achievement. Winter, Rinehart, Keedy, and Bjork (2004) asserted that the
decrease in job attractiveness of potential principals occurred due to the
increased responsibilities and added accountability for student achievement.
The growing role complexity, stress related to accountability, long work
hours (Fink, 2010), low compensation (Pijanowski & Brady, 2009), and the
perceived lack of support from district offices (Leithwood et al., 2004) have
all been identified as factors that contribute to a decrease in interest in the
principalship.
The implementation of performance-based accountability models has
caused a significant shift in leadership, so that the principles and methods of
the private sector, that is, measurement, merit pay high-stakes testing, and so
on, has become a part of the public sphere (Lewis & Fusarelli, 2010). This
shift, along with the high levels of stresses faced by administrators, has
caused them to feel pressured to perform (McNeese, Roberson, & Haines,
2008). While principals have an indirect impact on student achievement
according to DuFour and Marzano (2011), they are now being held
Peters-Hawkins et al. 31

accountable for student outcomes (Lewis & Fusarelli, 2010). Furthermore,

“A number of scholars have stressed that leaders are increasingly working
within roles that are conflicted, complex and politically sensitive, resulting
in role anxiety, emotional stress, and professional burnout” (Schmidt, 2010,
p. 626).
McNeese et al. (2008) purport that over the past decades the structural and
theoretical changes in the role of the principal have caused a principal short-
age, as an increased number of school administrators have resigned from
their positions. One of the main reasons for this transit is the high levels of
stress encountered by school administrators (McNeese et al., 2008). Schmidt
(2010) attributes the resignations to the negative experiences in the adminis-
trative position.
Zepeda et al. (2012) found that workforce trends indicate that the princi-
palship is a less desirable job, with applicants becoming much more selective
in where they are willing to work. School system leaders can no longer count
on a pool of applicants naturally appearing whenever there is a job opening;
therefore, the management and planning for the succession of principals
should be considered an important aspect of how a system ensures that com-
petent candidates are ready to assume the principalship when an opening
does occur.
This article applies a framework for more effective leadership succession
planning within an urban school district. We examine current trends in school
leadership succession, making the argument for a new direction in school
leadership succession utilizing the framework of DLS (Peters, 2011).

DLS: A Model
In response to the literature on succession planning for school leaders, Peters
(2011) put forth the DLS model, a comprehensive synthesis of the literature
on leadership succession planning, to assist schools and districts in thinking
through the process for leadership succession. The DLS framework views
leadership succession as cyclical and ongoing, affected by the challenges and
elements of the context, rather than linear. The concept is developed from the
literature on leadership succession in schools (Groves, 2007; Hall, 2008;
Hargreaves, 2005; Hargreaves & Fink, 2003; Lovely, 2004; Masci, Cuddapah,
& Pajak, 2008; Mulford & Moreno, 2006; Normore, 2007; Schechter &
Tischler, 2007) and empirical, qualitative data.
The DLS model speaks to multiple elements of succession planning.
Currently, much of the research on school leadership succession is disjointed
and reactive, focusing on only one element of succession planning. The DLS
model synthesizes the seminal literature on succession planning in schools, to
32 Urban Education 53(1)

provide a dynamic model that is a seamless approach to leadership succes-

sion. This allows schools and districts to enter the process wherever it makes
sense for them, and encourages schools and districts to mindfully engage in
each element on some level. There are three components, or elements, to
DLS. Forecasting, sustaining leadership, and planning are interrelated and
dynamic elements of leadership succession as a successful practice. In what
follows, we outline the three elements of DLS.
Succession planning as a process is often discussed as though it is a ratio-
nal, linear process; however, it is a messy and cyclical process (Friedman,
1986). Thus, although DLS is dynamic and not linear, for the purpose of
description, each element will be discussed individually.
Forecasting is the proactive planning for vacancies that are anticipated
(Lovely, 2004). Forecasting provides schools and districts with a mechanism
for developing and nurturing their own leadership pipelines (Normore, 2007).
By doing so, districts are able to develop “in-house” talent and prepare them
for anticipated leadership vacancies.
Sustaining leadership (Hargreaves & Fink, 2003) is the process of acknowl-
edging effective leadership simultaneously preparing for succession. This
includes capacity building across the school community, for instance, investing
in effective teacher leaders who can support the work of an effective principal
(Hargreaves, 2005; Hargreaves & Fink, 2003; Lambert, 1998). This concept
embraces notions of distributed leadership, noting that effective schools distrib-
ute leadership across many capable leaders at different levels within the organiza-
tion (Hall, 2008; Hargreaves, 2005; Kimball & Sirotnik, 2000; Lambert, 1998;
Schechter & Tischler, 2007). Peters (2011) summarizes sustaining leadership:
“[D]ebunking the notions of the ‘superleader’ who acts alone as a change agent,
such practices lend credence to an understanding of organizational change as a
group process, the success of which is contingent upon many” (p. 67).
Planning is the final element of DLS. Notably, Hargreaves (2005) stated
“few things in education succeed less than leadership succession” (p. 163).
Succession is a challenging undertaking, and for it to be successful, a great
deal of planning must take place. The DLS model calls for a transition plan
that is inclusive of outgoing and incoming leadership, includes the faculty,
and is clear (Schechter & Tischler, 2007). In the planning phase, leadership
transitions and change are proactive. Effective planning requires the outgo-
ing and incoming leaders to engage in dialogue with one another (Schechter
& Tischler, 2007). Peters (2011) summarizes, “[U]ltimately, each of these
actions: forecasting; sustaining; and planning, is key to identifying upcom-
ing vacancies, creating opportunities to support and sustain leaders within
their roles and maintaining organizational stability when the leader departs”
(p. 68).
Peters-Hawkins et al. 33

Method
Next, we describe the methodology for this analysis, which includes the
design, district and school context, participants, data sources, data analysis,
and findings presentation.

Design
This study is a qualitative case analysis based on a conceptual model. To
answer the research questions, we used a Qualitative Secondary Analysis
(QSA; Gladstone, Volpe, & Boydell, 2007) of data from a larger study that
took place over the course of 3 years. Gladstone et al. (2007) described QSA
as “the reuse of existing data, collected for prior purposes, to investigate new
questions or apply a new perspective to an ‘old’ question and as a means of
corroborating, validating, or redefining original, primary analysis” (p. 443).
The previous study, funded by the Wallace Foundation, came from a collabo-
ration of 14 comprehensive high schools from five urban school districts in a
Midwestern state. The project’s purpose was to build leadership capacity
within urban public schools. In its last year of funding, the issue of principal
succession planning emerged as a critical challenge in building leadership
capacity within the five urban districts.
The initial study that took place over the course of 3 years investigated the
succession planning practices of the five urban school districts. Thirty-seven
interviews were conducted, digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed.
Study participants included district-level administrators, building principals
and assistant principals.

District and School Context

The Northwest City School District (NCSD) is a Midwestern, urban school dis-
trict with an enrollment of 82,000 students. Typical case sampling (Glesne,
2015) was used to select this district and school. A key finding in the larger study
was that succession planning was a major challenge to all five urban school
districts. NCSD was the largest of the five districts and exhibited many of the
typical or normal patterns described in the larger study’s findings. The district is
inundated with social and economic issues including poverty, gangs, violence,
and high transience. These issues are particularly salient and troubling in the
district’s 11 large, comprehensive high schools. The district’s graduation rate is
only 61.1% in comparison with the state average of 85.7%.
Three years prior to this study, George Washington High School (GWHS)
was reconstituted to charter high school under the NCSD’s control. This
34 Urban Education 53(1)

decision was made as an effort to address the low student academic achievement
at GWHS. The school’s racial makeup is 89.3% African American, 5.4% Asian,
3.3% White, 1.4% Latino, 0.6% American Indian, and 0.1% Other. The eco-
nomically vulnerable population of students who receive free or reduced lunch
is 75.6%. The achievement data indicate that 30% of 10th-grade students were
proficient or advanced in reading. In math, only 15% of students are proficient
or advanced.
The GWHS is the ninth largest high school out of 26 high schools in the
NCSD. GWHS serves 1,128 students in Grades 9 to 12. Over the years,
GWHS has been plagued with many of the challenges typical of large, com-
prehensive, urban high schools: high dropout rates, low attendance, low
engagement, high teacher turnover, and high transience.
As a part of the initial study on succession planning in all five districts, the
principals identified high turnover, lack of leadership consistency, and the
lack of leadership succession planning as critical barriers to school improve-
ment. During the project’s professional development sessions, the principals
identified succession planning as the most significant leadership challenge in
each of their districts. In the initial study, one of the research team members,
who had been involved in several partnerships and previous leadership stud-
ies over 30 years with NCSD, indicated that the district record-keeping was
slightly disorganized and could provide little reliable information for appoint-
ments, transfers, and promotions, making it difficult to track assistant princi-
pal and principal succession.

Participants
For this case analysis, we used purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002) to select
two building-level administrators and two district administrators from the
original, larger research study. Patton (2002) explained that the results from a
single case study may not be generalizable to the broader population, but it
can help researchers understand a situation or occurrence better. Mrs.
Williams, the principal of GWHS, and Mr. Jones, one of three assistant prin-
cipals at GWHS, were selected for this analysis based on their unique leader-
ship transition journeys within NCSD and their willingness to share their
successes and challenges related to succession planning in GWHS. After
GWHS’s reconstitution, Mrs. Williams interviewed and was selected to be
the first principal. Mrs. Williams, an African American woman in her 40s,
was an alumna of Technology High School, which was one of NCSD’s most
prestigious schools when she attended as a student. She had been a teacher
and assistant principal in NCSD for 25 years. Central Services placed Mrs.
Williams at GWHS in as an interim principal because it was a new “National
Peters-Hawkins et al. 35

Reform Model” charter high school as a result of consistent failure to meet

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). While Mrs. Williams went through three
comprehensive interviews before she was selected as principal, she had no
idea what she was really going to be faced with as she took on setting up a
new charter school within the district. After 5 years at GWHS, Mrs. Williams
was reassigned to another comprehensive high school in the NCSD for 1 year
as a principal-on-special-assignment. She was not demoted to assistant prin-
cipal but was supposed to be given “various” tasks by the principal to facili-
tate. Following that year, after 23 years in secondary education, she was
reassigned to a principalship at a K-8 school, much to her chagrin.
Mr. Jones, the second participant, was an African American assistant prin-
cipal who was also in his early 40s. Originally from a southern state, he was
recruited right out of college to teach in NCSD. Mr. Jones had been a teacher
and assistant principal in NCSD for 20 years. He spent 12 years as an elemen-
tary and middle school teacher and eight as a high school assistant principal.
At the time of the original study, he had been at GWHS for 5 years. Mr. Jones
had already been an assistant principal at GWHS for a couple of years before
Mrs. Williams was appointed to be principal. She had no input regarding
whether he stayed on the GWHS administrative team. This placement was
made solely by the district.
Other participants in this study include Mr. Thomas, the superintendent of
NCSD, and Mrs. White, the NCSD Director of the Department of
Administrative Accountability. Before serving as superintendent of NCSD
for 8 years, Mr. Thomas was an effective principal at a high-achieving middle
school in the district. Mr. Thomas’s vision for principal succession planning
was broadly centered on leadership cultivation; whereas, Mrs. White had a
more specific description of the district’s espoused succession plans. Her
main responsibility was to oversee eight administrative leadership specialists
who supervised district principals and assistant principals. In what follows,
we provide the leadership succession philosophy and some specific examples
of how the district leadership has espoused its implementation.

Data Sources
In the initial study, 37 interviews from across five districts and 14 schools
were conducted, digitally recorded, and transcribed. Study participants
included district-level administrators, building principals, and assistant
principals.
For this secondary analysis, participant transcripts from Mr. Thomas, Mrs.
White, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Jones were coded using template analysis
(King, 2004). To validate and triangulate (Glesne, 2015) these transcribed
36 Urban Education 53(1)

interviews, we used copious field notes from meetings, professional develop-

ment sessions, and on-site school interactions that took place during the ini-
tial study. Additional data sources including the district and school website,
district report cards, newsletters, and school improvement plans were used to
triangulate and validate the transcribed interview data.

Data Analysis and Findings Presentation

Based on the tenets of the DLS model, we reanalyzed this specific case to
examine ways in which the district and school engage in leadership succes-
sion planning. The researchers used template analysis (King, 2004) to reex-
amine a smaller portion of the larger study’s data. Template analysis allows
the researcher to utilize a previous theoretical framework, in this case DLS,
to analyze data. The flexibility of template analysis seeks to compare differ-
ing perspectives in the same context. In this case, we sought to compare the
leadership succession perspectives of district administrators to school-level
administrators. We coded the transcripts and field notes with the three tenets
of DLS, forecasting, sustaining and planning, in mind. Glesne (2015) noted
that “coding is a progressive process of sorting and defining and defining and
sorting . . . collected data that are applicable to your research purpose”
(p. 135). We present our findings using the template of DLS themes.

Findings: The gap between district vision and school leader lived experience. To
describe the findings, we illuminate the district vision of principal succession
planning in NCSD (as articulated by the superintendent) juxtaposed to the
lived experiences of succession planning in a school (as articulated by a prin-
cipal and assistant principal) based on the tenet of DLS. First, we provide the
espoused plans of Mr. Thomas, district superintendent, and Mrs. White,
director of administrative accountability. Second, we describe the authentic,
lived experiences of Mrs. Williams and Mr. Jones, two building-level admin-
istrators in the district.

NCSD Leadership Development Philosophy

As superintendent, Mr. Thomas’ vision on leadership development was to
support “emerging leaders to create transition.” The district leadership team
sought “young, enthusiastic, very passionate leaders for improving academic
achievement.” Leaders with these attributes were considered for promotions.
However, selecting the right leadership is not a straightforward process. Mr.
Thomas asked leaders leaving a school “[W]hat characteristics should the
successor possess?” Moreover, he considered the personality and strengths of
Peters-Hawkins et al. 37

the leader, as well as the school’s needs in each leadership placement. Some
schools had strong governance councils that provided suggestions about the
type of principal they would like appointed to a known vacancy.
Another key attribute from Mr. Thomas’ perspective was that school leaders
should be instructionally strong with an ability to establish relationships with
students. He said, “I think the issue at the high school level is really looking at
the learning environment for the adults and changing the learning environment
for the kids. That will drive instructional changes.” Good principals create
environments where adults relate well to students. In some of his school obser-
vations, Mr. Thomas noticed adults were not interfacing with students. He felt
that was a “waste.” Students and adults should relate on a social level to form
positive relationships, which will impact teaching and learning.

Challenges in Leadership Development and Management

Mr. Thomas indicated that a major problem in succession planning and school
leadership placement is that administrators are not being properly evalu-
ated—the specialists fail to accurately rate principals and principals fail to
properly evaluate assistant principals. In his estimation, 90% of supervisors
do not adequately evaluate the administrators they supervise. He described a
fear of negative perceptions when bad evaluations are given. He said:

I was on [the leadership specialists and principals] the other day . . . We think
we can save the world so we can’t ever admit the fact someone is a poor
performer. I said if I get rid of an African American, you are claiming I’m a
racist. If I am getting rid of a White person, I’m arbitrary and capricious. We
never can admit the fact that maybe the person didn’t have the skill set to do the
job. Why can’t we call it like it is?

Mr. Thomas stated that prior to his term as superintendent, principals had
much more autonomy in hiring assistant principals. However, when it was
time to evaluate their performance, many principals failed to adequately eval-
uate them because several had made the mistake of hiring personal friends.
Principals in this dilemma then wanted the district administration to simply
remove these hires from their buildings without sufficient rationale to support
the decision.

The District Vision for Succession Through the Lens of DLS

Mrs. White admitted that the district had little knowledge of potential leaders
in the NCSD leadership pipeline. She stated, “We don’t have a list where
we’ve identified these are the next five people who will take positions. So we
38 Urban Education 53(1)

don’t have a process such as a list or a priority order.” The district had a pro-
cess to replace outgoing principals. In the case of a long-term building prin-
cipal, the Superintendent met with the school governance council to determine
the qualities their next principal to possess. Ms. White felt that a combination
of the HR recommendation, governance council feedback, and the superin-
tendent’s assessment has led to successful principal promotions and
placements.

Planning.  When a known vacancy occurred in the district, Mrs. White sug-
gested that there has been both a district-sponsored succession plan and prin-
cipal planned succession. Mr. Thomas sought to organize succession around
obtaining the retirement plans of principals. Specifically he said, “We’ve
encouraged principals and particular people who have been in buildings for a
long time to come forward at least a year ahead of time if they know they are
going to retire so we can build a quality bridge.” When a retirement is known,
the ideal plan is for a successor to spend a significant amount of time in the
building shadowing the retiring principal. Mr. White and several other NCSD
administrators from the original study pointed to one example where an ele-
mentary principal was selected to succeed a longtime principal of the dis-
trict’s gifted and talented middle school. The incoming principal was allowed
to work in the building under the tutelage of the retiring principal. In cases
where a school may have had surplus in its budget, overlapping the adminis-
trator could be supported. However, if the outgoing leadership was ineffec-
tive, this transition/overlap would not be encouraged to reduce the chance
that ineffective habits would be passed on to the new leader.
When principals are newly promoted from the assistant principal ranks,
Mrs. White said that they try to have the assistant principal placed in the
school for at least 2 weeks to overlap with the principal who is leaving. She
disclosed that her department provides 100 questions and points of informa-
tion that a new school leader should use to learn about the new school from
the outgoing principal. There is also another guide organized by elementary,
middle, and high school levels to aid in the transition of incoming principals
as they prepare for the new position.

Sustaining.  Mrs. White described a new administrator mentoring and coach-

ing program as “very strong.” This program was tailored to align with the
district’s strategic plan, the state’s standards for administrators for the
assessment center, and the district’s evaluation process, so that early career
principals are supported. This year, new principals and assistant principals in
their first 3 years of leadership were provided with “a hundred hours per
school year of mentoring.” This program is also offered to curriculum
Peters-Hawkins et al. 39

Figure 1.  Dynamic leadership succession tenets.

specialists, special education supervisors, and other district supervisors.

There is a cohort of 60 early career principals and approximately 55 initial
educator administrators.

Forecasting.  When the initial study was conducted, the NCSD did not seem to
have a mechanism to anticipate vacancies despite the district’s move toward
implementing new school reform initiatives based on low student academic
achievement. In group discussions and individual interviews, the five NCSD
principals who participated in the initial study corroborated the lack of fore-
casting leadership needs.

Espoused theory versus actual practice: Perspectives of building-level

administrators.  In what follows, we present a detailed discussion of Mrs. Wil-
liams and Mr. Jones’s perceptions of principal succession planning in NCSD
through the lens of the DLS framework. To reiterate, the tenets of DLS are
not linear, but overlapping and cyclical as demonstrated in Figure 1. How-
ever, for the purposes of this text, we present the data in the following order:
forecasting, sustaining, and planning.
40 Urban Education 53(1)

Forecasting
This section focuses on both the impact on GWHS of district policies and
practices in forecasting anticipated leadership vacancies, and the resultant
processes Mrs. Williams put in place at the school level to adequately antici-
pate future leadership vacancies.

Impact of district forecasting on GWHS. The lack of structure in anticipating

leadership vacancies was particularly evident for Mrs. Williams who was
appointed to lead a newly reconstituted school based on low student achieve-
ment. She described her district’s leadership succession as “random acts of
kindness” and a “bingo toss” because there was no clear pathway to the princi-
palship. To her, it appeared that the district was sporadic in “forecasting”
upcoming leadership needs and had no set processes in place to fill vacancies.
Although the district was fully aware of the vacancies at the newly recon-
stituted GWHS, Mrs. Williams had no input on selecting her administrative
team despite the extensive interview she underwent to get the principalship at
GWHS. Her assistant principals were merely assigned to her school without
an interview process.
The assigned assistant principals who were placed at GWHS were unen-
thusiastic about their jobs, which frustrated Mrs. Williams. Since her school
was under a new constitution, all staff (administrators included) were required
to participate in a 3-year specialized training. However, two new assistant
principal did not participate in the training. Even when assistant principals
retired, their replacements did not participate in the training. There was no set
training for them to attend despite the assistant principals inexperience. Not
having all administrators properly trained at the same time caused a gap in the
reconstitution process.
Mrs. Williams viewed her placement as an arbitrary reassignment; she
was moved from GWHS after 5 years as principal, to another NCSD com-
prehensive high school. She said, “I mean really it was no thought to [my
move to the other district high school], because my skills were not used
until the 11th hour.” To her recollection, no one explained to her why she
was on special assignment or specifically, what she was supposed to do at
the new high school. The principal, staff, and students were also not clear
about what her role was to be which caused confusion. As a result, the new
staff thought she was merely an assistant principal, not a principal-on-
special-assignment. It was not until her new school was identified for man-
datory reorganization that her expertise became important to the principal
and staff as they prepared for the impending school-wide change mandated
by the district.
Peters-Hawkins et al. 41

To further explain how erratic the leadership assignments had been, Mr.
Jones indicated that after Mrs. Williams left GWHS, there had been four
principals in 4 years. The turnover for asistant principals was also high. Mr.
Jones was the only assistant principal who remained. Out of three assistant
principal positions, four other asistant principals rotated in and out of the
other two positions. He described the change in leadership as “awful” and felt
that the teachers’ morale had been affected by the constant, haphazard transi-
tions in leadership.

Forecasting at the school level.  It was Mrs. Williams’s intention to fully fore-
cast her school’s leadership needs in terms of future teacher leaders and
potential assistant principals. First, at the school level, Mrs. Williams wanted
to create gender balance on her leadership team. Communicating this need to
the district administration was her way of forecasting the need at GWHS for
a more comprehensive leadership team. Since she was a female, she wanted
to select a couple of male administrators; however, central office did not sup-
port her request.
Second, Mrs. Williams always considered the potential leadership talent
in her building by forecasting upcoming openings at her school or at other
schools within the district. For example, she identified Mr. Davis, a high
school special education teacher, as someone who would make a good admin-
istrator. Mrs. Williams directly approached him and made it clear that she
wanted to provide leadership development opportunities for him.
At one point during the study, Mrs. Williams had three assistant principals.
Two of the administrators were slated for retirement; one in September and
one in January. The district central office told Mrs. Williams that she would
likely not get an outside replacement. This news did not alarm her because
she was already supporting and helping to develop the Mr. Davis’ leadership
skills. Furthermore, understanding that the GWHS administration had been
inconsistent for several years in their leadership selections, Mrs. Williams
wanted to encourage and support fresh teacher leadership. Williams stated,
“So, I think I have been very supportive with Mr. Davis and anyone else who
wants to have some [leadership] training.” Mrs. Williams offered leadership
opportunities to Mr. Davis and other teacher leaders to intentionally and con-
sistently maintain a leadership pipeline within the school.
Mrs. Williams discussed other teachers in the building whom she identi-
fied as having the potential to move into a teacher leader or administrator
role. She also expected that potential leaders “have good classroom manage-
ment, good relationships with students and parents, [and] that get-up and go
mentality. They are motivated and willing to try new things.” She looked for
42 Urban Education 53(1)

teachers who had both the necessary credentials and the appropriate leader-
ship skills.
Even while there seemed to be a lack of planning on the part of the district
administration for assistant principal promotion, Mrs. Williams adopted her
own leadership planning strategy within GWHS. One way that Mrs. Williams
attempted to implement leadership succession in the planning stage is by
creating alternative structures for teacher leadership. She described a com-
prehensive structure for teacher leadership. First, Mrs. Williams described
the traditional system of department chairs in NCSD. However, instead of
choosing chairs based on what they have taught, she looked for individuals
who would potentially make good administrators based on the previously
mentioned leadership qualities. She stated, “I’m looking for someone with
strength, who is a ‘go-getter’ not afraid to step out on a limb and try some
[innovative] things, but would be willing to work with the teachers.” The
district also required teachers and administrators to participate in learning
walks to collect data on classrooms. Mrs. Williams viewed teachers that vol-
unteered to participate in these roles as potential leaders.
Identifying potential leaders was a shared administrative task. Mr. Jones,
the assistant principal, also looked for a number of leadership qualities when
seeking out teacher leaders or those whom he feels could move into an assis-
tant principal role. Mrs. Williams relied on Mr. Jones’s input when identify-
ing teacher leaders. Jones intimated, “I look at [the teacher’s] involvement.
Are they getting on anything to try and show that they interested in becoming
a leader . . . who[m] people can rely on?” Like Mrs. Williams, Jones also
considered classroom leadership, discipline, student confidence, and rapport
with colleagues as a metric for identifying teacher leaders.
In sum, NCSD district administrators did not clearly engage in a process
of forecasting for upcoming leadership needs. However, at the school level,
Mrs. Williams and Mr. Jones did forecast anticipated leadership needs. They
sought talent and projected future leadership needs at GWHS.

Sustaining
The act of sustaining for leadership succession at GWHS was informed by
the district policies and practices, discussed here. Furthermore, Mrs. Williams
reflected on these practices and developed several strategies to support lead-
ership sustainability within the school.

Mrs. Williams’s induction to principal role. As mentioned previously, GWHS

was reconstituted based on low student achievement and failure to meet AYP.
Even though a detailed process to select a new principal for GWHS had taken
Peters-Hawkins et al. 43

place, there were no comprehensive plans to induct Mrs. Williams into her
new principal role. She stated, “The person I replaced was retiring. I came in
during their last day on the job. I think we had one hour where we could sit
down and chit-chat. That was it.” She described her induction as having to
rely on more informal networking and mentoring, described in the next
section.

Mrs. Williams’s mentoring experiences.  From the district level, Mrs. Williams
did not receive consistent, formal mentorship as a new principal. Within her
first 3 years as principal, she was assigned three different mentor coaches. As
Mrs. Williams described the process of her transition (or induction) to her
role as principal, she talked about mentorship or lack thereof. She said, “I was
assigned a principal coach from the district for the three years, and I have had
three different principal coaches. I am on my third one.” She explained that
the district changed the university partner used by the district to assign and
manage principal mentors. She felt that the first 2 years, she was assigned a
“decent” mentor. During her third year, she was assigned a mentor who was
switched after 2 weeks. At the time of the first interview, she had been
assigned another mentor with whom she had not yet met.
Informal district mentors proved to be more helpful in her own develop-
ment and stability as a new principal, than did the inconsistent, formally
assigned mentors. She said of informal mentors, “If I get stuck on something,
I call and ask what do you think about this or what have you.” At the same
time, she said, “I am pretty much a self-starter and if I get stuck on some-
thing, I ask questions or I figure it out on my own . . . but I am not afraid to
seek help from my colleagues who’ve been there before.” She was mentored
by former colleagues who were familiar with her work style and abilities.

Mr. Jones’s induction to assistant principal role.  Mr. Jones admitted that he had
several challenges transitioning into his first role as assistant principal at
another school. However, he happened to know Ms. Perry, the former princi-
pal of GWHS from when he was at Park Side High School. Ms. Perry infor-
mally supported and advised Mr. Jones while he struggled at Park Side. It was
through her advocacy that he was moved to his current appointment. Mr.
Jones noted that Park Side had fewer discipline issues and more academic
focus than GWHS. When he was placed at GHWS, he changed his approach
to the job. For example, he said, “I’ve got a lot of guidance and a lot of other
things I’ve picked up, like how to deal with people.”

Mr. Jones’s mentoring experiences.  In light of the numerous challenges in his

first year as assistant principal, Mrs. Williams’ mentorship proved valuable to
44 Urban Education 53(1)

Mr. Jones. He expressed more contentment in his leadership assignment at

GWHS. Despite the district’s shortcomings in systemically sustaining school
level administrators, the principal and assistant principal were able to develop
a mentorship relationship that helped to sustain them in their jobs.
Mrs. Williams took great care to build the leadership capacity of assistant
principals who wanted to be developed. Mr. Jones, who had several chal-
lenges earlier in his administrative career, was eager to learn from Mrs.
Williams. As a result, she empowered him with guided leadership assign-
ments and ongoing mentoring. From her perspective, she was preparing him
for a principalship, either at her school or another within the district.
Similar to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Jones also reported developing an informal
network that helped to sustain him professionally. This helped him survive
the rough transition as an assistant principal at Park Side School (a previous
position) as well as his recent his transfer to GWHS as the new assistant prin-
cipal. Mr. Jones said that these informal mentors were essential to his sur-
vival as a new administrator.

Evaluation as a sustaining strategy.  Instructional leadership is one of the crite-

ria used by Mrs. William to evaluate assistant principals. Mrs. Williams
described a fluid process of supporting assistant principals on the job as situ-
ations arise. In addition to an instructional leadership focus, assistant princi-
pals must select one other focus area to be evaluated. Since assistant principals
are often on the front line when dealing with challenging parents/guardians,
relationships, and communication often becomes their second area of focus.
She offers feedback to her assistant principals regularly about interacting
with parents, while keeping in mind that parents are often disgruntled because
the assistant principals have simply done their jobs. She said, “Some of the
concerns are legitimate and valid, while some of the concerns are you just
doing your job and they did not want to hear what you had to say to them.”
While navigating various situations involving challenging parents, Mrs.
Williams makes herself available to reiterate the same message of the assis-
tant principals to certain parents. In this case, Mrs. Williams used the evalua-
tion tool as way to sustain and develop her current assistant principals.

Principal to assistant principal mentoring.  Mrs. Williams also described other

mechanisms for mentoring her assistant principals. Through the grant-funded
Wallace Foundation project, she was able to provide more specific leadership
professional development. In addition, she encouraged her assistant princi-
pals to ask questions, “You’re not going to know everything and even if I
don’t know the answer, I can find someone who will give you the answer.”
Mrs. Williams also gave the assistant principals certain responsibilities,
Peters-Hawkins et al. 45

refrained from micromanaging them, and served as a resource if her input

was needed. Mrs. Williams believed that her openness allowed the assistant
principals to be comfortable in speaking with her about the challenges associ-
ated with the assistant principalship.
The other two assistant principals at GWHS had been demoted from princi-
pal to assistant principal, as a result, mentoring them was more difficult. The fact
that they were about to retire made mentoring even more challenging. She said,

With the last two retirees, the challenge there was that they were former
principals who were demoted, so you know those feelings, these concerns or
what have you and then you look at the age dynamic because you know, they’re
about to retire.

Mrs. Williams was grateful that through leadership professional development

opportunities, the school’s leadership was assigned a university support fac-
ulty member who supported school leaders in leadership capacity building.
The faculty representative supported the demoted administrators by encour-
aging them to lead in effective ways despite their status.

Planning
Mrs. Williams and Mr. Jones both described minimal transition (or induction) to
their roles as principal and assistant principal, respectively. This section describes
the impact of district planning (or lack thereof) on their leadership experiences.

The transition from assistant principal to principal.  When Mrs. Williams left her
post as assistant principal prior to being named principal at GWHS, she
described what happened at the school she left:

The person that was under-filling for me got a sub one or two days and I explained
to him the procedures that I used with dealing with students. I explained where I
was in the process of any central office expulsion hearings. I gave him some tips
on codes that were needed when filling out incident referrals . . . I gave him all of
the information that I had for special education. I listed a couple of students to
watch for so that . . . he could appropriately attend to those students.

Outside of this one-on-one time with her successor, this is all of the “transi-
tion” he received to her knowledge.

Lack of clear pathways to administration.  Another important element to plan-

ning is a clear pathway to the leadership role (Peters, 2011). From Mrs. Wil-
liams’s perspective, the district lacked coherent leadership succession
46 Urban Education 53(1)

planning. This lack of planning made it difficult for those seeking administra-
tive positions to plan for promotion. For example, Mr. Jones had no clue as to
the path he needed to take if he wanted to be promoted to becoming a princi-
pal in the district. He could only speculate about what how high school prin-
cipals were selected stating, “I think they are replaced by the superintendent.”
Mr. Jones also said, “Another way, I think they place assistant principals is
with [the] professional development experience they gain from summer
school principal positions. I heard they place assistant principals in that role
[to] gain some professional development and understanding by running dif-
ferent programs.”
Although the selection criteria for new principals were unclear, Mr. Jones
perceived that the district offered assistant principals the opportunity to be
summer school principals as professional development for possible promo-
tion to the principalship. But, ultimately, Mr. Jones felt that the superinten-
dent randomly made promotions as he saw fit. Both Mrs. Williams and Mr.
Jones felt that the absence of a clear pathway to administration made it dif-
ficult for a candidate to plan how to approach being promoted within NCSD.

District Response to DLS Challenges Within the District

As demonstrated through the stories of both Mrs. Williams and Mr. Jones,
NCSD presented some challenges with respect to leadership succession plan-
ning. At the onset of the urban leadership capacity building project, the five
NCSD principals identified similar challenges with the succession planning
within the district. Similarly, the principals from the other four urban districts
also identified these challenges within their respective districts. This identifi-
cation spawned the initial larger investigation. Representatives from the
NCSD leadership team were a part of the discussions and privy to the study
findings regarding the lack of succession planning.
Mr. Thomas and Mrs. White, district administrators, acknowledged a real
need for additional shaping of the district succession plan. Following the
study results, NCSD experienced a need to quickly replace large numbers of
principals due to anticipated retirements. The district leadership developed a
more concerted plan to provide more cohesion in succession planning.
In this plan, school leaders were offered more in-service professional
development. First, NCSD instituted an Aspiring Principal Academy (APA).
Over the course of 18 months, NCSD collaborated with the department of
administrative leadership at a local university to offer the APA to 25 NCSD
administrators who desired to become principals within the district. Those
selected for the program via an application process agreed to participate out-
side of their regular work duties and responsibilities. Participants were not
Peters-Hawkins et al. 47

given a guaranteed promotion opportunity, but it was a way to foster profes-

sional development for them to prepare as they move toward the role of prin-
cipal. The first 6 months included an intense curriculum focused on issues in
urban educational leadership, curriculum and instruction leadership, and
other district and state educational initiatives.
Mr. Thomas and Mrs. White felt strongly that mentoring was crucial. In
the following 12 months, the candidates were immersed in mentoring. A
three-tiered-mentoring model provided one-on-one mentoring from a retired
principal, and both small and large group mentoring from current principals
within NCSD and surrounding districts.
As the APA was underway, NCSD also implemented a program to
strengthen the pipeline for teacher leaders who wished to pursue assistant
principal roles. The Aspiring Assistant Principal Program (AAPP) was a
6-month program featuring a curriculum in which participant identified per-
sonal leadership strengths; examined issues in urban administration, curricu-
lum, and instruction leadership; and became familiar with other district and
state initiatives. A slightly different program from APA, participants in the
AAPP received mentoring simultaneously as they participated in the pro-
gram’s curriculum. Both programs were advertised to the district-at-large. No
guarantee of promotion was promised. At the same time, participation in the
programs was viewed favorably when participants applied for principal or
assistant principal openings.

Discussion and Conclusion

We began this article with a discussion of challenges faced by urban admin-
istrators and the need for a change in school leadership succession planning
to properly fill vacancies. Such was the case found in NCSD. Scholars (Fink
& Brayman, 2006; Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006) cited that more often than
not, succession decisions in schools are generally not made to sustain conti-
nuity within a school, but to be a quick fix to the shortage problem or to some
other reform demand. As the literature (Fink, & Brayman, 2006; Hargreaves,
2009; Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006; Thompson, 2010) suggested, district
leadership choices tend to be driven more by school achievement versus indi-
vidual leaders’ trajectories. In the case of NCSD, because GWHS was recon-
stituted based solely on low student achievement, a new principal was needed.

The Gap Between Vision and Implementation

This research specifically examined two research questions. The first research
question examined how the district- and school-level leadership policies and
48 Urban Education 53(1)

practices affected the implementation of leadership succession processes?

Interestingly, in spite of the district leadership’s vision of comprehensive and
effective leadership succession processes, an examination of these strategies
at the school level revealed a gap between district vision and school
implementation.
While the district vision was to support effective leaders to improve stu-
dent achievement outcomes, at the school level, the perception was that the
district support was lacking. In the case of Mrs. Williams, her promotion to
principalship was made possible due to the district initiated reconstitution of
GWHS as a result of low student achievement. However, though her promo-
tion was supposed to lead to a more stable environment, there was a great
deal of instability that remained. The support she wanted and needed was not
provided. For instance, she had little to no formal mentoring although she
was a first-year principal; she inherited two assistant principals who were
demoted principals, who subsequently retired a year later; and she was
released without warning after 5 years. This created more uncertainty among
the remaining staff and administration. Subsequently, GWHS suffered intense
leadership turnover, both at the principal and assistant principal level. NCSD
did not incorporate a comprehensive succession planning strategy into the
overall school improvement plan. Failure to do so led to uncertainty among
the staff and difficulty in maintaining continuity with the existing culture
established by the exiting school leaders.
The challenge of finding effective principals is more salient in urban districts
and schools with poor students of color, and specifically at the high and middle
school levels (Goldring & Taie, 2014; Huang et al., 2012; Loeb et al., 2010;
Whitaker, 2003). NCSD’s demographics represent conditions in most urban
school districts. Furthermore, GWHS’ demographics and its high principal turn-
over also represent the challenge to recruiting and sustaining long-term school
leadership with respect to the principalship and assistant principals. This high
turnover coincides with Leithwood et al. (2004) findings regarding the rapid
turnover in the principalship. In the 4 years that followed Mrs. Williams’s depar-
ture, GWHS literally had a total of four principals in 4 years. As Mr. Jones
indicated, GWHS’ high leadership turnover had an adverse effect on the staff’s
attitude and produced uncertainty about the school’s direction. This finding
coincides with Wahlstrom’s research, which indicated that turnover affects
school culture and ultimately, student achievement.

The DLS Model and Succession Planning at GWHS

This research also examined the evidence of elements of the DLS model in
the leadership succession processes at the school or district level. In
Peters-Hawkins et al. 49

examining the tenets of the DLS model, the experiences of Mrs. Williams and
Mr. Jones in NCSD demonstrates a need for urban districts to strengthen their
pipelines and pathways to school leadership. The NCSD vision for leadership
succession planning demonstrated some areas of strength, but also weak-
nesses as outlined by DLS. First, there was little forecasting of leadership
needs from the district. While Mr. Thomas, Ms. White, and the district admin-
istrators, had an overall vision for how they wanted succession to occur in the
district, a gap existed for the two administrators in this study.
To some degree, Mrs. Williams tried to consider future leadership
within her school and the district-at-large. Second, sustaining efforts
within the district also seemed somewhat haphazard as demonstrated by
the induction challenges experienced both by Mrs. Williams and Mr. Jones
as they transitioned into their respective roles of principal and assistant
principal. Mrs. Williams was plucked from an assistant principal assign-
ment and placed in a principalship without adequate support. Finally,
although Mrs. Williams was intentional about planning for succession by
identifying potential leaders within the school, deliberate planning for
transition between leaders was lacking at the district level. Furthermore,
the process for becoming an administrator in NCSD was ambiguous.
Ultimately, the district provided little evidence of forecasting vacancies
(in spite of the fact that two assistant principals were retiring); sustaining
growth (in fact, naming a new principal to a new school and staffing the
school with assistant principals who were demoted principals seems quite
contradictory of the goal of sustaining positive change); or planning for
the transition of leadership.
On a positive note, we also observed that NCSD made attempts to improve
its forecasting and planning for succession by implementing two leadership
professional development opportunities. In anticipating upcoming principal
vacancies due to retirements, the district projected vacancies and the need to
bolster the candidate pool. NCSD also recognized the need to fill assistant
principal positions once principals were hired from the NCSD assistant prin-
cipal ranks. Implementing district-sponsored programs like the APA and the
AAPP corresponds to the “grow your own” model suggested by some schol-
ars (Drew & Ehrich, 2010). These opportunities were transparently offered to
the district-at-large. We cannot be certain if these changes were made as a
result of the findings in the initial study that indicated a need for more con-
crete leadership planning.
To combat this cycle of leadership failure, school districts must program-
matically rethink the elements needed to facilitate succession planning effec-
tively (Groves, 2007). In such a fluid system, succession is planned carefully
and is an integral part of a school’s improvement plan. Succession is viewed as
a dynamic process that simultaneously includes forecasting upcoming openings
50 Urban Education 53(1)

and preparing a pipeline of qualified individuals; sustaining leaders in their posi-

tions by providing support and mentoring, providing transparency during the
transition process and enabling the gains made by one leader to be sustained in
spite of the transition; and planning in a deliberate organized manner for the
inevitability of change in leadership. Effective planning occurs when vision
articulation, thorough communication, and differentiated support flows between
the district and the school at every level of the succession planning process.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

References
Balser, D. B., & Carmin, J. (2009). Leadership succession and the emergence of
an organizational identity threat. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20,
185-201.
Boyne, G. A., James, O., John, P., & Petrovsky, N. (2011). Top management turn-
over and organizational performance: A test of a contingency model. Public
Administration Review, 71, 572-581.
Cascio, W. F. (2011). Leadership success: How to avoid a crisis. Ivey Business
Journal, 75(3), 6-8.
Cooley, V. E., & Shen, J. (2000). Factors influencing applying for an urban principal-
ship. Education and Urban Society, 32, 443-454.
DeMatthews, D., & Mawhinney, H. (2014). Social justice leadership and inclu-
sion: Exploring challenges in an urban district struggling to address inequities.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 50, 844-881.
Drew, G. M., & Ehrich, L. C. (2010). A model of organisational leadership devel-
opment informing succession development: Elements and practices. Academic
Leadership Online Journal, 8(4), 42.
Dufour, R., & Marzano, R. (2011). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and
classroom leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution.
Fennell, M., & Miller, S. D. (2007, October). Fostering sustainable growth on cam-
puses. University Business, pp. 48-52.
Fenwick, L. T., & Pierce, M. C. (2002). Professional development of principals.
Washington, DC: ERIC Digest.
Fink, D. (2010). The succession challenge: Building and sustaining leadership capac-
ity through succession management. New York, NY: Sage.
Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of
change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 62-89.
Peters-Hawkins et al. 51

Friedman, S. D. (1986). Succession system in large corporations: Characteristics and

correlates of performance. Human Resource Management, 25, 191-213.
Fuller, E. J., & Young, M. D. (2009). Tenure and retention of newly hired princi-
pals in Texas. Austin, TX: University Council for Educational Administration,
Department of Educational Administration, University of Texas at Austin.
Fuller, E. J., Young, M. D., & Baker, B. (2007, November). The relationship between
principal characteristics, principal turnover, teacher quality, teacher turnover,
and student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University
Council of Educational Administration, Alexandria, VA.
Garza, E., Jr., Drysdale, L., Gurr, D., Jacobson, S., & Merchant, B. (2014). Leadership
for school success: Lessons from effective principals. International Journal of
Educational Management, 28, 798-811.
Gladstone, B., Volpe, T., & Boydell, K. M. (2007). Issues encountered in a qualita-
tive secondary analysis of help-seeking in the prodrome to psychosis. Journal of
Behavioral Health Services & Research, 34, 431-442.
Glesne, C. (2015). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York,
NY: Pearson.
Goldring, R., & Taie, S. (2014). Principal attrition and mobility: Results from the
2012–13 principal follow-up survey (NCES 2014-064). U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
Groves, K. (2007). Integrating leadership development and succession planning best
practices. Journal of Management Development, 26, 239-260.
Hall, B. (2008). Keep the leadership pipeline flowing. National Staff Development
Council, 29, 33-36.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effective-
ness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 32, 5-44.
Hammond, J., Muffs, M., & Sciascia, S. (2001). The leadership crisis: Is it for real?
Principal, 81(2), 28-32.
Hargreaves, A. (2005). Leadership succession. The Educational Forum, 69, 163-173.
Hargreaves, A. (2009). Leadership succession and sustainable improvement. School
Administrator, 66(11), 10-14.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2003). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84,
693-700.
Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustain-
ability and non-sustainability of three decades of secondary school change and
continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 3-41.
Huang, T., Beachum, F. D., White, G. P., Kaimal, G., FitzGerald, A. M., & Reed, P.
(2012). Preparing urban school leadership: What works? Planning and Changing,
43, 72-95.
Khalifa, M. (2012). A. “re”-new-”ed” paradigm in successful urban school leader-
ship: Principal as community leader. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48,
424-467.
52 Urban Education 53(1)

Kimball, K., & Sirotnik, K. A. (2000). The urban school principal: Take this job and
. . . ! Education and Urban Society, 32, 535-543.
King, N. (2004). Using templates in thematic analysis. In C. Cassell & G. Symon
(Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research
(pp. 256-270) London, England: Sage.
Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research:
How leadership influences student learning. Minneapolis, MN: Center for
Applied Research and Educational Improvement/University of Minnesota and
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto.
Lewis, W. D., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2010). Leading schools in an era of change: Toward
a new culture of accountability. In S. D. Horsford (Ed.), New perspectives on
educational leadership: Exploring social, political, and community contexts and
meaning (pp. 111-126). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., & Horng, E. L. (2010). Principal preferences and the uneven
distribution of principals across schools. Education Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 32, 205-229.
Lovely, S. (2004). Leadership forecasting. Leadership, 34, 17-19.
Malone, B. G., & Caddell, T. A. (2000). A crisis in leadership: Where are tomorrow’s
principals? The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and
Ideas, 73, 162-164.
Masci, F. J., Cuddapah, J. L., & Pajak, E. F. (2008). Becoming an agent of stability:
Keeping your school in balance during the perfect storm. American Secondary
Education, 36, 57-67.
McNeese, R. M., Roberson, T. J., & Haines, G. A. (2008, October-November). Motivation
for pursuing a degree in education administration. Paper presented at the University
council of education administration 2008 annual meeting, Orlando, FL.
Mulford, B., & Moreno, J. M. (2006). Sinking ships, emerging leadership: A true
story of sustainability (or the lack thereof). The Educational Forum, 70, 204-214.
Myung, J., Loeb, S., & Horng, E. (2011). Tapping the principal pipeline: Identifying
talent for future school leadership in the absence of formal succession manage-
ment programs. Education Administration Journal, 48, 468-505.
Normore, A. H. (2007). A continuum approach for developing school leaders in a
large urban school district. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(3).
Retrieved from http://www.ucea.org/JRLE/issue.php
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Peters, A. L. (2011). (Un)planned failure: Unsuccessful succession planning in an
urban district. Journal of School Leadership, 21(1), 64-86.
Pijanowski, J. C., & Brady, K. P. (2009). The influence of salary in attracting and
retaining school leaders. Education and Urban Society, 42, 25-41.
Pounder, D. G., & Merrill, R. J. (2001). Job desirability of the high school principal-
ship: A job choice theory perspective. Education Administration Quarterly, 37,
27-35.
Peters-Hawkins et al. 53

Rothwell, W. J. (2011). Replacement planning: A starting point for succession plan-

ning and talent management. International Journal of Training and Development,
15, 87-99.
Rothwell, W. J., & Poduch, S. (2004). Introducing technical (not managerial) succes-
sion planning. Public Personnel Management, 33, 405-419.
Schall, E. (1997). Public-sector succession: A strategic approach to sustaining inno-
vation. Public Administration Review, 57, 4-10.
Schechter, C., & Tischler, I. (2007). Organizational learning mechanisms and leader-
ship succession: Key elements of planned school change. Educational Planning,
16(2), 1-7.
Schmidt, M. (2010). Is there a place for emotions within leadership preparation pro-
grammes? Journal of Educational Administration, 48, 626-641.
Simkins, T., Close, P., & Smith, P. (2009). Work-shadowing as a process for facilitat-
ing leadership succession in primary schools. School Leadership & Management,
29, 239-251.
Taylor, R. T., & La Cava, G. S. (2011). Urban principals’ second order change leader-
ship. Planning and Changing, 42, 224-240.
Thompson, K. (2010). How strategic is the school-based planning for leadership
succession? International studies in educational administration. Commonwealth
Council For Educational Administration & Management, 38, 98-113.
Trepanier, S., & Crenshaw, J. T. (2013). Succession planning: A call to action for
nurse executives. Journal of Nursing Management, 21, 980-985.
Whitaker, K. S. (2003). Principal role changes and influence on principal recruit-
ment and selection: An international perspective. Journal of Educational
Administration, 41, 37-54.
Winter, P. A., & Morgenthal, J. R. (2002). Principal recruitment in a reform environ-
ment: Effects of school achievement and school level on applicant attraction to
the job. Education Administration Quarterly, 38, 319-340.
Winter, P. A., Rinehart, J. S., Keedy, J. L., & Bjork, L. L. (2004). Recruiting certified
personnel to be principals: A statewide assessment of potential job applicants.
Planning and Changing, 35, 85-107.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Kruger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student
achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39, 398-425.
Zepeda, S. J., Bengtson, E., & Parylo, O. (2012). Examining the planning and manage-
ment of principal succession. Journal of Educational Administration, 50, 136-158.

Author Biographies
April L. Peters-Hawkins is an associate professor at the University of Houston. She
earned a PhD in Educational Policy and Leadership from The Ohio State University,
an MSW from Columbia University in New York, and a BSEd from Northwestern
University, Evanston, IL. Her research interests include: women in school leadership;
examining the ways that districts provide mentoring and support for early career
administrators; and leadership and small school reform.
54 Urban Education 53(1)

Latish C. Reed is currently the equity specialist for the Milwaukee Public Schools.
She has been a middle school teacher, school administrator, and assistant professor of
educational leadership at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and The
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. She received her PhD in Educational Leadership
and Policy Analysis from The University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Francemise Kingsberry is a recent graduate of North Carolina State University’s
Educational Administration and Supervision program where she earned a Doctor of
Education degree. She is a former elementary and middle school teacher and school
administrator. She is currently serving as an adjunct assistant professor at The University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the Master of School Administration program.