Stretched Too Thin: A Narrative Study of the Experiences of Early Career Principals in Jewish Day Schools

ABSTRACT

Early career principals in Jewish day school are frequently unprepared for the role, contributing to attrition in school leadership. This narrative study explores the socialization of ten Jewish day school principals in the first three years of their first position. These leaders have similar feelings of being overwhelmed and unprepared as principals in other school contexts. They also experienced stress factors unique to Jewish day schools, exacerbating the challenges of socializing into their new role. In response, principals seek support structures within and outside of the school. Conscious cultivation of support may contribute significantly to principal retention.

KEYWORDS:

• Jewish day school
• leadership
• principal
• school
• socialization

Introduction

As independent schooling has evolved over the last century, so has the subset of Jewish day schools. Jewish day schools are at the center of Jewish communal life and serve as “the vehicle through which we train successive generations of Jews to negotiate their own way, as Jews, in the American arena” (Sarna, 1998, p. 9). Jewish day schools are independent schools, usually accredited, which teach all general subjects in addition to Hebrew language and some Judaic studies (Bible, oral law, Jewish culture, Jewish History, etc.). Although in the 1940s fewer than 20,000 students were in Jewish schools for their complete education (Wertheimer, 1999), over the past 75 years that number has ballooned to over 290,000 children from age 4 to 12th grade enrolled in 906 Jewish day schools in the United States in the 2018–2019 academic year (Besser, 2019).¹ This sizable growth has increased the need for effective leadership. At the helm of these schools is a leadership team that is often a head of school who leads a team of divisional principals. The principal is the leader of teaching and learning in the school while the head of school oversees all aspects of the school including fundraising, recruitment, and budgeting. This article describes a study of the experiences of early career principals in Jewish day schools.

In a public school, the term principal consistently refers to a lone leader of the building. These principals report to a superintendent who oversees all principals in a given district. The term principal is far less consistent in the Jewish day school context. In some schools, generally smaller ones, the principal and head of school are one in the same. This individual is responsible for the teaching and learning in the school as well as other financial and managerial areas. Still other schools will have a principal or co-principals responsible for each division or band of grades within a division. Some schools will have a single leader responsible for each section of the school, while others will have both a general studies and a Judaic principal share the responsibility, as co-principals. A further complication in Jewish day schools is that the person responsible for the teaching and learning and who directly oversees the teachers may not have the title principal at all. They may be called a director or an assistant principal. Due to this diversity, for the purposes of this study, the role and responsibilities of an educational leader were utilized to define the scope of inquiry, rather than the leader’s professional title. For the purpose of participant selection in this study, a principal is defined by the role of chief educational officer of the school, responsible for the teaching and learning by directly supervising teachers. Although a head of school may be ultimately responsible for the teaching and learning, provided the school is large enough to have a second layer of administration, the head of school is not directly responsible for supervising teachers, thus excluding such a position from this study. The role of chief educational officer may rest with one person for an entire school, or it may be divided into a principal for each division of the school (e.g., middle school principal) or even co-principals for a division (e.g., general studies high school principal).

By all accounts, the job of principal is a difficult one. School leaders report extensive job expectation and insufficient time to accomplish everything (De Jong et al., 2017). As early career principals begin their work, they experience shock at being responsible for such a volume of tasks, spread over diverse areas, coming at them in an unpredictable way (Spillane & Lee, 2014). Principals also have higher rates of burnout and more job stress than the general population (Maxwell & Riley, 2017). The most recent crisis years of COVID-19 have exacerbated the challenges of the role of principal and susceptibility of principals to burnout (Clifford & Coggshall, 2021).

These factors likely contribute to the significant principal turnover. Nationally, more than a third of principals leave their positions in under two years (Levin & Bradley, 2019). Some states have more extreme rates, such as Texas where principal turnover in public schools is 30% in the first year and 60% after three years (Davis & Anderson, 2020). These frequent leadership transitions complicate educational improvement and contribute to higher teacher turnover and lower student achievement (Bartanen et al., 2019; Béteille et al., 2012; Miller, 2013). Although accurate data from Jewish day schools on leadership turnover is not readily available,² in one study 41% of principals in Jewish day schools were in the first three years of their position, suggesting that a similar turnover issue is present (Kidron et al., 2016). Post-COVID-19 data on leadership transition in Jewish day schools is not available, but the anecdotal evidence suggests that it is increasing as school leaders experience burnout similar to other Jewish communal professionals (see, for example, Stone, 2021a, 2021b).

Despite the important roles that principals play in a school, there is a dearth of research when it comes to the leadership of Jewish day school principals (Vaisben, 2018).³ Leadership in Jewish day schools requires further investigation due in part to the fact that avenues to school leadership in the public sector require preparation that is frequently absent in Jewish day schools. There is no requirement for a Jewish day school principal to have state certification, take any specific educational courses, or have any specific experience. This means principals are frequently hired with significantly less experience and training than their public school peers. Understanding the story of new leaders in Jewish day schools is critical in appreciating how to support them. This article begins to tell their stories.

This narrative study aims to explore the socialization of Jewish day school principals in their first three years of leadership. The goal is to explore the stories of early career principals’ experiences in their new positions so that support and training can be developed to facilitate successful onboarding and continuing professional development for these leaders. A more informed focus on the socialization of principals has the potential to decrease burnout and pave the road to more successful principals and leadership stability in Jewish day schools. In illuminating the experiences of early career day school principals, I argue that by deploying a proactively planned induction and offering support during the socialization process, heads of school can reduce the stress on principals during their first years, increasing their chance of success and longevity in school leadership. Specific steps that can be taken will be included at the end of this article.

Literature Review

Although a relatively minimal amount of data exists regarding the experiences of early career principals in the Jewish day school context specifically, this study does build upon research regarding the experiences of early career principals in public school as they transition into this new role. Most of this research applies broadly across contexts and will also apply to Jewish day school leadership (Kidron et al., 2016). In addition, there is research that provides a structure for exploring how people more broadly become accustomed to a new professional role and are socialized into this new role and context, and this structure has already been applied to school contexts specifically. These two areas will be summarized in this section.

Experience Transitioning into the Principal Role

The role of principal is intense and time consuming. Public school principals report an average of 58.6 hours a week on the job. About 30% of the time is spent on instructional leadership, 30% on organizational management, with the remainder spent on student and parent interactions (NCES, 2016). Principals often describe the transition as “abrupt” (Lortie, 2009, p. 32) with only 13% in Lortie’s study of public elementary school principals saying their prior experience was good preparation for being principal. Sixteen percent of principals’ chief complaint was regarding the excessive time and effort required for the job, second only to complaints about salary (Lortie, 2009).

The sheer volume and variety of tasks demanded of principals can often overwhelm newcomers to the work. Spillane and Lee (2014) looked at the first three months of Chicago public school principals’ experience and focused on the specific challenge of the work of the principalship. They found a commonality of principals experiencing shock at the volume of tasks and the level of ultimate responsibility for all aspects of the school. They separated this sense of stress and being overwhelmed into three specific aspects: task volume, diversity, and unpredictability. Part of early career principals’ entry shock is likely due to these shifts in context and identity; yet, Spillane and Lee suggest that preparation is a way to lessen this shock and stress.

Although early career principals’ lack of experience generally contributed to their feeling overwhelmed, their newness also did create some level of support in that some faculty provided them with a break due to their being new. In his study of principals, Lortie (2009) found that some principals described their early career work as a “de facto apprenticeship” (p. 42), where faculty members would provide the principals more leeway and understanding. However, this seems more the exception than the rule. In general, a principal’s entry into the role is abrupt and lacks the same “mediated entry” (Lortie, 1975, p. 59) that is missing for teachers, who are not given a chance to be slowly introduced to the work. Such well-timed sequences of introduction to work reduce anxiety and allow for learning. Just as teachers are expected to fully do the same job as a 25-year veteran on their first day, the same argument can be made about principals entering their initial positions.

Despite the fact that early career principals begin in school contexts that are usually very similar to where they taught, many of the challenges of the new role are entirely unfamiliar. The principal has not simply moved up a rung on the management ladder but has undertaken an entirely different set of responsibilities. One principal expressed this challenge by saying, “Finding a way to juggle everything is a huge struggle at times, and I’m always wishing I could just add five more hours to my day. I feel I let my teachers down because I’m not in the classrooms giving feedback as much as I would like” (Cook, 2015, p. 6). Bush (2018), building on prior work in socialization theory, broke the challenge of early career principals into three aspects of their transition. He claims that principals go through three different transformations: professional socialization, identity change, and organizational socialization. In other words, principals need to get used to the profession, see themselves as a principal (rather than as a teacher), and get used to the new school they are leading. This represents not simply learning new skills but a context and identity shift that must be thoughtfully navigated. Principals have described the identity change as moving from the “role as an advocate for teachers to a holistic view of the school as its main leader” (Superville, 2019, p. 3). Principals go from managing students as a teacher to managing adults and children, a new challenge (Lortie, 2009). This identity transition is as true for principals in a Jewish day school context.

The identity transition that principals go through includes needing to manage relationships in new ways and balance them appropriately. Principals deal with parents in a way that is different from how they needed to work with parents as teachers. Even in a public-school context, Lortie (2009) points out that parent overreach into school decisions is significant and principals are concerned about the consequences of parents who are not appeased. In addition to navigating potentially challenging interactions with parents, principals must balance the goodwill of the parents and supporting their teachers when these ideals are in conflict. Lortie identifies this particular challenge for principals as the “most pressing and most distressing” (Lortie, 2009, p. 143). Navigating these competing relationships is a significant challenge for early career principals, and Lortie’s sample had 38% identifying learning about relationships to be the most important learning in their early careers and 68% reporting that early professional errors were in the area of relationships. These missteps in navigating relationships compound early career principals’ feelings of being overwhelmed while adapting to their new role as a manager of adults.

Jewish Day Schools

The differences identified in the literature between independent schools (including religious ones) and public schools suggests that Jewish day school principals can potentially have even more and varied responsibility than their public-school counterparts. Independent schools have a higher degree of organizational development than public schools (Weshah, 2011), and responsibilities that are centered at the district offices in public schools can often fall to the principal in independent schools (Boyle et al., 2016; Vaisben, 2018).

Additionally, responsibilities that do not exist for public school principals, such as board relations (Hoots, 2018) and student recruitment, although not usually the direct purview of Jewish day school principals, still must be navigated by them. Even within responsibilities that are shared with their public-school counterparts, independent school principals have been shown to focus more on communicating with constituents (Henkel & Slate, 2013) and have a greater level of general autonomy (Shakeel & DeAngelis, 2017). Finally, in Jewish day schools, religious leadership (Boyle et al., 2016; Morten & Lawler, 2016) and student identity formation (Krakowski, 2017) can be added to the responsibilities of a principal.

The same differences that create more autonomy for Jewish day schools also potentially means less external support available for leaders without a district office. It can also create more pressure via demands for accountability from parents and community members who perceive that most decisions are the direct responsibility for the school’s leaders and not the result of state or national laws or district policies that must be followed. In the context of Jewish day schools, some day school leaders write about the challenge of difficult parents (Portnoy, 2009) while others lament under-engaged parents (Botwinick, 2021). No doubt both exist, and there is not clear data about whether these situations are more or less prevalent in Jewish day schools than in public schools.

Although much of the challenge specific to Jewish day schools stems from the broader range of responsibilities common to these principals, areas where their focus is comparatively narrower can also be uniquely challenging. Many Jewish day school principals oversee only a particular subdivision of the school’s overall work. In many day schools, principals who are responsible only for Judaic studies or general studies had less frequent interactions with the school community than school leaders who were fully responsible for the division. The gap was widest for leaders who were new to their current position (Kidron et al., 2016). Less proactive communication with parents correlated with leaders feeling less positively about their parent interactions (Kidron et al., 2016).

Despite these differences in context between public schools and Jewish day schools, much of the literature examining the experiences of early career principals is quite applicable to the Jewish day school context. Because both public school and Jewish day school principals are managers of adults engaging in similar leadership roles in a school context, they share similar experiences adjusting to this role that are more alike than different.

Organizational Socialization

Socialization is defined as the process through which a person learns the knowledge, skills, and values to perform a specific role in an organization (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Most simply, it is “the process of learning a new role” (Crow, 2007, p. 52). Although, some researchers use induction and socialization interchangeably, in this study, socialization is used to refer to the learning of a new social role (Leithwood et al., 1992). Given the importance of relationships to the principal position, socialization was the most appropriate framework. Socialization includes a structure and chronology whose design is the domain of the organization. Parallel to this socialization is the response of the new employee (or the new role for the employee) to the socialization which impacts their view of their role and sense of self in the context of the organization. In addition, the framework of socialization includes a tactical element (Norton, 1994)—what the organization does consciously or unconsciously to facilitate the process of the new person learning their role. This aspect will help to draw possible practical steps that schools can take to support their early career principals.

Examining induction of early career principals through the theory of organizational socialization offers a framework for hearing the stories of the challenges and supports of their entrance into school leadership. This study built upon the previous works (Bengtson et al., 2013; Bush, 2018; Crow & Walker, 2006; Crow, 2007; Greenfield, 1985a, 1985b) that utilized socialization to examine school leaders, applying the framework to the less explored subsection of Jewish day schools.

Schools, like any other organization, must help new leaders socialize into their roles. Van Maanen and Schein (1979) delineated six areas where organizations either consciously or unconsciously put structures in place to guide socialization of new employees: Collective/Individual, Formal/Informal, Sequential/Random, Fixed/Variable, Serial/Disjunctive and Investiture/Divestiture. This structure categorizes the organization’s approach to helping the new member learn how to function in their position within the organization. This study focused on what Van Maanen and Schein (1979) call professional socialization (learning the career) as opposed to organizational socialization (specific to the site where the person is working) or personal socialization (a person’s own self-concept when they take on a new role).

Principal socialization can also be broken into three chronological phases. The first phase is learning and uncertainty, followed by a period of gradual adjustment and then stabilization (Bengtson et al., 2013). The first two phases are most turbulent, and socialization tactics are most influential (Bengtson et al., 2013. The response of the principal to socialization starts to become apparent in the second two phases (Bengtson et al., 2013). Since Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) introduction of socialization, the conception of socialization has changed from a more linear and relatively brief period in the experience of the individual, to an ongoing process. In addition, in the late 1990s, the focus shifted from a study of the phenomenon of beginning position to understanding the learning process through which socialization happens (Kearney & Boylan, 2015). Since the 1980s, socialization has been used as a framework by principals for examining their individual experiences of socialization as well as to study specific aspects of early career principals such as leadership succession within schools and proper professional preparation (Norton, 1994).

Early career principals respond to the process of socialization in a variety of ways. Van Maanen and Schein (1979) describe three potential responses to socialization: custodianship (accepting the status quo), content innovation (building on the current role) or role innovation (fundamentally shifting the role). Custodianship is the most conservative reaction to socialization, frequently the result of organizational socialization tactics (Jones, 1986). Innovation is a desire to change programs or approaches, either while keeping fealty to the role as it has been (content innovation) or by altering the parameters of the role itself (role innovation) and can be accomplished by more individualized socialization (Jones, 1986). In a school setting, the desired reaction of the person being socialized will frequently depend on the standing of the school when the new leader enters: is the school generally in a strong position or is it in need of major change (Bengtson et al., 2013)?

With this background and theoretical structure, this narrative study sought to answer the question:

What are the experiences of Jewish day school principals in their induction into their first principalship in the first three years?

To what degree do their experiences match what we already know about the socialization of principals, and what new elements exist? A better understanding of their experiences is essential to guide schools in providing the right structures, practices, support, and guidance to best socialize early career principals in Jewish day schools.

Methods

This qualitative study sought to better understand the experience of early career Jewish day school principals during their transition and socialization through their stories and contexts. Using in-depth interviews, participants who were between five and eight years removed from their first year as principals were asked to recall their induction into the principalship to understand how they imbued those experiences with meaning (Bruner, 1986; Caine et al., 2013) in order to create a meaningful composite of their individual experiences (Mishler, 1986). The interviews were guided facilitation of principals exploring their experiences to co-create meaning around these experiences in the retrospective (Mishler, 1986). A sparse interview guide was used to allow the participants to tell a story rather than to reveal specific facts (Chase, 2011) including subquestions designed to encourage deeper telling and reflection on the narratives as they were shared. The following are examples of general questions used:

• Can you describe your professional trajectory that led to you first considering becoming a principal?

• What are some words you would use to describe your first few years as principal?

• What comes to mind first when you remember those years?

• As you entered your first year of your principalship what were your expectations [in terms of how you would be prepared]? Did they match the reality of what happened?

• Where did you turn for support your first year?

• What aspects of the job did you feel least prepared for?

• What were some areas that you felt more confident about?

Narrative research is not simply asking someone to tell a story but facilitating exploration of their experience through their narration of events to understand the meaning the participant attaches to their story (Chase, 2011). Polkinghorne (1995) stresses that sometimes only in retrospect can we glean meaning from our stories, and for this reason participants were interviewed after they were a few years from their first year as principal. Although this decision was by design, it must be acknowledged that a retrospective brings with it the limitations of the participants’ recollection. However, since narrative research focuses on the meaning participants attach to their experience it can be argued that the accuracy of their recollection is not the area of study. This study focuses on the meaning early career principals attach to their socialization into their first principal position, and distance from these events can support this broader perspective.

Participants and Research Process

Although historically the term principal was used for the singular leader of an entire school, this has changed. A principal, for the purpose of selection and this study, is defined as the chief educational officer of the school, directly responsible for the teaching and learning by immediately supervising teachers. Participants were recruited through ads posted and sent out in listservs for Jewish day school leaders (sent by Prizmah and the Lookstein Center at Bar Ilan University) and snowball sampling (Creswell, 2013). This sampling approach allowed for a broad geographical representation within schools that were community,⁴ Conservative and Modern Orthodox, but likely excluded schools that were Chassidic or Yeshiva in orientation, as they would not be utilizing such listservs.

Six men and four women between the ages of 40 and 55 were interviewed. Interviews were between 50 and 75 minutes and were conducted online using the Zoom platform due to COVID-19, aside from the first interview which took place in person before COVID-19 protocols were enacted. The Zoom record function was used to record the interviews and a recording device was used for the in-person interview. All participants had been new principals in a Jewish school and were between five and eight years removed from that first year, enough distance to give them perspective on their experience to glean meaning (Polkinghorne, 1995) while still close enough for good recall. All participants were still administrators in Jewish day schools at the time of their interviews aside from one who had returned to school to pursue a terminal degree in education.

The vast majority of participants had some type of administrative experience prior to becoming principal including three directors of a program (e.g., special education), three former assistant principals, and two former department chairs. Three of the principals were in schools small enough that they were also the head of school and were responsible for finances, enrollment, and other noneducational aspects of the school in addition to their educational leadership. The others were principals who reported to the head of school and were responsible for one or two divisions within the school.

The participants initial leadership roles were spread around the country in schools that varied in terms of size⁵ and religious affiliations⁶ within the Jewish day school system providing a picture of the general experience of day school principals in their first position (see Table 1). The participants led schools in nine different states with many from the eastern coast and the southern parts of the United States. Each participant was given a pseudonym using names of Jewish leaders from the Bible and Talmud who were especially known for their educational endeavors.

Table 1. Biographical information on participants.

	Individual				School
	Male/ Female	Years of experience teaching	Previous administrative experience	HOS duties	Religious Affiliation	Grades	Enrollment^5
Chiyah	M	>5	Yes	No	Modern Orthodox	K-12	201–350
Miriam	F	>10	Yes	No	Modern Orthodox	P-8	201–350
Yehoshua	M	>5	Yes	No	Conservative	P-8	201–350
Devorah	F	>5	Yes	No	Community^6	K-6	51–100
Sarah	F	>15	Yes	No	Community	K-5	1–50
Moshe	M	>10	Yes	Yes	Modern Orthodox	9–12	51–100
Bruriah	F	>15	Yes	No	Modern Orthodox	P-12	501–750
Akiva	M	>15	Yes	Yes	Modern Orthodox	P-2	201–350
Chaim	M	<5	No	Yes	Community	K-5	1–50
Shimon	M	>5	Yes	No	Community	K-12	101–200

Interview Analysis

Once each interview was transcribed using Rev.com, they were initially coded using in vivo coding to capture the experiences of each participant (Miles et al., 2014). After the initial pass of in vivo coding on all transcripts, a second pass was completed on each transcript using descriptive coding for themes repeated across the interviews to facilitate weaving an overall narrative that reflects the shared experience of socialization (Miles et al., 2014). This method was chosen in order to utilize the language of the participants while also grouping in vivo codes together into descriptive themes that were related, balancing between the recognition of the uniqueness of individuals and pulling out commonalities of experience in their narratives (Trahar, 2009). These codes were then used to organize the individual experiences into common themes and present the findings of the study. The researcher then engaged in “codeweaving,” that is, integrating the codes into the analysis using analytic memoing (Saldaña, 2009, p. 48), in order to form conclusions.

The research is thick due to the dual exploration of the stories through the prism of the context of individual schools and the Jewish day school system as a whole. This leads to “thick meaning” that can be transferable to other contexts (Ponterotto, 2006). The variety of school size, religious affiliation, and span of grades create a level of heterogeneity that supports some transferability to other contexts, both Jewish day schools and larger contexts such as parochial schools or independent schools where similar leadership structures are in place, even as it also highlights the aspects of early career experiences that are specific to the day school context.

Findings

The experiences of early career principals as they began their first principal role included both their effective response to the transition and what happened as a result of those feelings. The principals in this study felt overwhelmed and unprepared, and as a result they struggled with self-care and sought support in ways that are very similar to their counterparts in the public-school sector. On a deeper level, they grappled with their identity and role within the school and in the Jewish community at large. This focus on community differed from the experience of public-school leaders. It is important to understand the experience of early career principals in Jewish day schools in order to identify potential steps schools can take to support a smoother transition and better overall socialization. Each of these themes will be explored.

Overwhelmed

Nine out of the ten participants reported feeling overwhelmed when they first entered the principalship. Participants felt overwhelmed by the volume of tasks to be completed, the complexity of the role, and the ultimate feeling of responsibility for running their school. This sense of being overwhelmed contributed to a tension between self-care and effectiveness (manifest in the fact that many participants worked long hours) and contributed to a sense that the job was difficult and not enjoyable. Bruriah explained, “I don’t remember enjoying much in the early years to be honest. It wasn’t really like that. It was sort of a survival like day to day, week to week survival plan sort of deciding if I wanted to survive this position or not. I don’t feel like there was much that was enjoyable.”

Volume of Tasks

Participants were almost unanimous in citing the fact that there is simply too much to do in the role of principal. Participants used the expression of needing to keep “all those balls in the air” (Sarah), being “stretched too thin” (Chiyah), and having an “insane amount of responsibilities” (Devorah). Sarah called the volume of work “untenable” and used the imagery of a million grains of sand that cannot be captured to express the fact that there are so many specific tasks and responsibilities. Similarly, Bruriah spoke about trying to accomplish everything as “drinking from a fire hose.”

The volume of work caused new principals to struggle with managing their time even when they previously felt that this was a strength. Bruriah spoke about being “unprepared for the time management” despite being “good at time management.” The volume of tasks was related to challenges in prioritizing since, as Sarah said, there were so many tasks it was hard to “get my arms around all that needed to be done.”

This was exacerbated by the willingness of principals to take on more responsibility. Chiyah commented that he was “grateful for this first leadership opportunity” and “probably said yes too much at the beginning.” There was a sense of gratitude and excitement over their new leadership positions and that, in retrospect, there was too much responsibility and not enough boundary setting. Moshe expressed a concern about “being realistic” about what was reasonable for a school leader to do while they are beginning a position.

Having too many tasks and being overwhelmed resulted in important aspects of the job being underserved. Sarah specifically spoke about this challenge as it related to giving teachers enough support in the classroom. She felt a tension between getting her other responsibilities done and being the type of mentor and coach that she wanted to be for her teachers. Feeling that she was not giving teachers the support they needed was also a further source of stress. Sarah said, “When I had teachers who were struggling, I felt like I could not give them as much support as they needed, because I didn’t have enough time and bandwidth to do that … And so knowing that some of the students and some of our classrooms were not getting what they needed or that the situations were not up to our standards was really difficult.”

Complexity of Tasks

A second aspect of the sense of being overwhelmed was how complex some of the tasks of being principal felt. Devorah commented that “the amount of skills that you need on a regular basis are [sic] nuts.” Many of the tasks required diverse skill sets or affected many different interest groups within the school community simultaneously and required “managing the expectations and desires of all the different stakeholders” (Yehoshua).

The complexity and volume of tasks was also exacerbated by the fact that many situations occurred in the moment and would upend planned work. Bruriah referred to this as the need to “turn on a dime.” Bruriah commented that this requires new principals to be “flexible” and “resilient.” She explained, “Whatever you think you’re going to do at work this morning is not what you’re doing at work this morning at all. Somebody broke a window and some teacher didn’t show up. There’s all kinds of different things that turn up in your day that you didn’t expect.”

Responsibility

Participants also mentioned the feeling of responsibility in taking on the leadership position of principal. One principal contrasted the leadership in independent schools in the United States with that of a more centralized educational system in a different country where he had also worked. He felt that there was more freedom and autonomy to create a vision in the United States as a principal and, thus, more responsibility.

Generally, the participants experienced this feeling of responsibility as “empowering” (Moshe) and at the same time a source of stress. Akiva described the sense of responsibility as simultaneously “overwhelming” and “inspiring.” The excitement of having more responsibility for the school operation was cited by participants as one of the major factors that led them to seek a principalship in the first place. For example, Miriam explained that after feeling frustrated about the limitations of her role as assistant principal it was “time to fly,” and Yehoshua sought a principal role when he felt he could “contribute in a role with more responsibility.” Although this area was a reason that participants gravitated to the role, it also added to the pressure and stress felt.

Unprepared

The theme of not being prepared for the role of principal also emerged. Moshe for example, mentioned feeling “thrown into the deep end” and had feelings of frustration and “despair” at times even though he felt good about what he had accomplished. Yehoshua also spoke about the fact that the first year felt “confounding” and the learning curve felt “overwhelming.” The cause of this feeling of being overwhelmed was a combination between a lack of “previous experience” (Shimon) and a need to learn a great deal quickly. Just getting a handle on the usual yearly cycle of tasks, programs, activities, and other aspects of running a school was very stressful and led to a feeling of “chasing your tail” (Sarah)—needing to get things done in a quicker timetable than felt ideal. Akiva attributed much of his feeling of being unprepared to the fact that he did not have time in a junior administrative role to get used to some of the skills and tasks that were required in being a principal: “I basically went from a teacher to head of school.”

This theme was distinct from the earlier themes in that it related to the trajectory of the early career principal and not necessarily their context. Early career principals with greater administrative experience expressed feeling more prepared for certain aspects of the role. Still, Chaim and Devorah were the only two participants who expressed an overall feeling of being prepared.

Principal Reactions to Feeling Overwhelmed and Unprepared

As a result of these challenges, principals struggled with self-care and also sought support in and out of the school building as a reaction to some of the challenges. Each of these two reactions will be explored separately.

Struggling with Self-Care

Feeling overwhelmed while simultaneously feeling responsible resulted in early career principals struggling with allowing time for self-care, physically and “emotionally” (Sarah). Even as they preached its importance, they reflected on how these priorities are frequently “some of the first things that go out the door” (Sarah). One specific indicator, that was most closely tied to the volume of tasks, was the need to work outside of school hours. Moshe, for example, spoke of “wistfully” looking at peers who were off on Sunday while he was “doing eight, nine, 10 hours of work.”

Sarah specifically tied this need to do work after hours to the need to be present in classrooms as the instructional leader of the school, “What that often meant was, so I would block out time in my day to X administrative work, that work had to go home or over the weekend so that I could be present in classrooms.” There was a recognition that these hours were stressful and difficult to manage but also a sense of resignation to the reality that they are necessary to do the job well. Akiva explained, “The other thing, which I still struggle with, is taking care of myself. And knowing that you’re a human being, limitations. Getting the appropriate amount of rest, exercise, and healthy care of yourself. I preach it a lot better than I practice it.”

Seeking Support

Participants expressed that seeking both emotional and professional support was part of how they reacted to the stresses of the early years of the principalship. As they identified feelings of fatigue and burnout, they spoke about where they turned to combat this challenge of “so much going out and so little coming in” (Devorah) in the way of support. Chiyah expressed this well by contrasting the fact that a principal’s role includes supporting teachers and students, and that similar support is frequently not forthcoming for the principal themselves. Chiyah used the imagery of a phone battery to demonstrate that the work of leading a school is depleting and the leader needs to be recharged.

When early career principals did not feel supported, it became one of the main stressors in their position. Miriam had such an experience where there “was no support” and it was part of the reason she moved on from her first position. Miriam also found a parallel lack of support in some of the management within the school. The hands-off approach of her head of school that forced her to decide to keep or fire a teacher “in a silo” felt like a lack of “collaboration” and support to Miriam. This perception of support as involvement, rather than as trust, was shared by the other participants.

Early career principals found needed support from a variety of sources including individuals within their own school, colleagues from other schools and family. Principals sought support both from within and outside of the school. The team within the school offered unique professional support, knowing the unique challenges of the school, and those outside the school offered a sounding board that was separate from the personal and political dynamics in the school.

In the Building

Support inside the building was most often found through other administrators, either a supervisor or colleague. These were people who understood the challenges that the early career principals faced and could offer a mix of professional and emotional support. Colleagues represented a place where principals could “vent” (Sarah) or “ask for advice or support” and receive “empathy” that felt very supportive (Chiyah). Most participants felt that this was impossible or even inappropriate to do with teachers who were reporting to them since “that’s not their role” (Moshe). However, Devorah stood out as a principal who found great support and the ability to be herself with her faculty who she felt always “had my back.” Principals who had a supportive head of school cited this as a significant source of support and found their guidance “wonderful” (Bruriah). While colleagues, such as other divisional principals or co-principals, stood out as a more significant source of support, the role of supervisor was important in creating an overall sense of being supported.

Bruriah worked with a co-principal in her division and found this to be the most significant source of support, describing their relationship as very close: “we’re like married.” She described this close relationship as allowing her not to feel “alone as some other principals do.” Participants who led their division alone still felt that the support of other principals in their schools (of other divisions) were a significant source of “help and guidance” (Chiyah).

Yehoshua also had an experience of feeling more supported than most other participants. He spoke about many people in the building who he felt wanted to see him succeed. He highlighted principals in other divisions, the head of school and other administrators who offered support and guidance in his initial year both as part of the “leadership team” and also “a whole lot of informal” guidance. He felt support “across the board,” commenting that there was not any situation “where I was just being left to have to deal on my own,” a marked difference from experiences like Miriam’s.

External to the School

While participants in the study did mention friends and family as a form of emotional support, the primary reliance on external support was professional in nature. Principals connected with colleagues outside of the school because speaking to a boss brought a “fear of losing our job” (Moshe). Early career principals wanted to find a safe space where they could create “cohorts of people who can genuinely support each other” with others “who’ve been there, done that, who know what it’s like” and can truly relate to their experiences (Moshe). This need was likely magnified by the overlap between the school community and the Jewish community. The fact that teachers and administrators in the school were also potentially parents and community members exacerbated the need to find a confidant outside the school.

These cohorts, which were part of programs designed to support Jewish day school administrators, were one of the most significant sources of support and were mentioned both as an emotional support as well as a source for professional support. Feeling that there are many others who are doing the same work in other schools was helpful to early career principals in dissipating the loneliness of leadership. Devorah called being in a cohort, “a really big part of feeling prepared” and said she “I never felt like I was alone. I always felt like I was part of a bigger cohort.” The sense of being part of a larger cohort of school leaders was also a main feature of professional development conferences, outshining whatever content was gained.

In addition to a cohort, a number of participants cited work with mentors who were not in their schools or even a therapist as being critical to their support network. Knowing they had that connection was a “really big deal” (Yehoshua) and a “game changer” (Akiva). Sarah shared, “I went into therapy because of my job, and I continue in therapy because of my job. And I really think that people in this position need probably both a professional coach and a therapist, but certainly at least one of those.” Akiva spoke about utilizing mentors as guides who allowed him to turn “rookie mistakes” into learning by helping him “reflect and grow” from these experiences. In general, both mentoring and cohorts helped participants to experience early mistakes and failures as points of growth through their feeling of being supported.

Forming a New Identity

In addition to the surface reaction to the stresses and challenges faced by early career principals, there was also a reaction on a deeper level that was more lasting. Principals reacted to the socialization period by beginning to shape their identity in this new leadership role both by defining their role in the school and also in their position and relationship with the larger Jewish community.

Role Definition

Early career principals discovered a series of tensions and contextual factors to be overcome as they navigated defining their role within their schools. The two elements within the theme of role definition were the history of the position and the tension of being “second-in-command.”

At least three candidates referenced their predecessor as something they dealt with as they settled into the position. Chiyah spoke about needing to “find my own voice and my own style” and push back against the “expectation” that “when a new person joins a team, they’re going to continue filling the roles that their predecessor filled.” Yehoshua spoke about other people in the school referencing his predecessor and needing to have “a certain amount of flexibility and openness” to understand what your predecessor did as part of the history and culture of the school and “adapt my practice to fit with what had been there to a certain extent.”

Chaim experienced replacing the former school leader who was an expert in special education. Chaim brought his experience as a synagogue rabbi but lacked the pedagogical chops of the previous leader and found dealing with discipline and student learning issues as “the biggest shock to my system.” Having an area that was previously handled well by the former leader where he felt out of his depth was a “distraction from anything else that I might have been trying to accomplish or to learn in those first couple of years.”

Another aspect of the principal role, experienced by those who reported to a head of school, was the feeling of being a middle manager: needing to manage direct reports (teachers) while also reporting to a supervisor (frequently the head of school). This need to find a balance between following and leading was unique to the position of principal. For example, Sarah spoke about specific challenges of feeling “very much in the middle of that” when a teacher was feeling “under the microscope” and “targeted” by the head of school. The tension described by principals is a parallel tension of having reports while still not being the final word on many decisions—needing to manage up and manage down simultaneously.

Those who were moving into a principal position within the same school they had previously been working also needed to navigate the redefinition of their professional relationships. Bruriah described needing to re-earn the trust of those she worked with. She describes this process as “complicated,” saying, “the idea that people with whom I had worked collegially were now under my supervision was a little complicated. Their responses to that was complicated. I had to sort of re-earn their trust even though they were very supportive of me in my teaching capacity and then they were very supportive with me in my overseeing of the special ed department.” She spoke particularly of the social aspects that changed dramatically when she took on the role of supervisor. People she has engaged socially with at school no longer wanted to do so because “I’m the boss now.”

Jewish Community

A unique aspect of leading a Jewish day school is the fact that these leaders, especially in smaller communities, are members of the same Jewish community as some of their parent body and teachers. This may involve attending the same synagogue weekly (or even daily) with families whose children attend their school, sharply diminishing the distance leaders are able to create in their time away from school. It also creates a potential entanglement of a leader’s own religious identity and practice with their identity as a school leader requiring these early career principals to grapple with identity issues in the larger Jewish community in addition to within the school.

The community, including synagogues and other aspects of Jewish life, is closely related to the Jewish school or schools. For those who were moving to a new community for their principal position, this reality makes transitioning into the Jewish community a critical part of socialization, more so than it might be in other contexts. Miriam transitioned into a principal position in a new city and felt a lack of support in integrating into the Jewish community. For Miriam, since she worked at an Orthodox school but was not Orthodox herself, she felt it was “very, very difficult for me personally” to integrate into the community. Even for most participants whose personal affiliation matched their school’s, the fact that they were a part of the same religious community as their constituents in the school made for challenges. Moshe spoke specifically about this challenge being more acute in smaller Jewish communities where even on Saturday when attending religious services, you continue in your role “literally 24/7.” Sarah’s struggle in this area impacted her own religious practice as she “dropped off going to Shul [synagogue] on Shabbat because I did not want to talk to people about school.”

Integration in the Jewish community also made certain challenges that come with managing a school more difficult. Dealing with underperforming teachers who were themselves part of the same Jewish community made that aspect of instructional leadership “very unpleasant” (Moshe) especially if there was communal pressure not to fire a teacher. Similarly, Chaim spoke about the culture of the community influencing the culture of the school negatively since the community is “so small and everyone knows everyone.” Early career principals’ short-term response to feelings of being overwhelmed included struggling with self-care and creating support structures. Eventually, these reactions gave way to longer-term identity struggles about their new role as principal and their place in the Jewish community.

Discussion

Understanding early career principals’ experiences as they transitioned into this new role is important to identify strategies that can be implemented in smoothing the transition, positioning principals for success. Their experiences, how they react to them, and deeper questions of how they position their identity in their school and communal roles, will all be aspects of this understanding. Some challenges and responses are common to principals in other school contexts while others are specific to the Jewish day school context.

Shared Challenges

The stories of these early career principals navigating their transition paralleled similar experiences of early career principals in public school contexts, described by Spillane and Lee (2014), as shock at being responsible for a large number of diverse areas presenting themselves in an unpredictable way. The principals expressed feelings of being overwhelmed and unprepared, mirroring what Van Maanen (1978) refers to as “reality shock” (p. 20) experienced when a role shifts, in our case from teacher, or junior administrator, to principal. This can cause anxiety, especially if a person must navigate informal socialization where they must pick up on the clues about how to form relationships and be effective without being explicitly told how to do so. As previously successful individuals who are generally driven self-starters, early career principals can sometimes take on too much. Their previous success coupled with their reticence to share their struggles in such an open forum as a school can create the perfect storm for taking on too much without sufficient support. This reality makes the school’s role in actively socializing these early career principals, including organizing systems to support the principal and keep their workload manageable, very important. Principals may have difficulty asking for this help, or even recognizing the need for it, until they are already overwhelmed and stressed.

The overlapping areas of emotional and professional support that early career principals sought are critical to successful socialization. When principals feel a sense of support, they are better able to innovate in their role as a reaction to socialization rather than reverting to custodianship which can often feel safer and easier. Professional support both within the school and externally were cited as important, with personal coaching and administrator cohorts emerging as the most significant form of support allowing new leaders to transform missteps into learning moments. These supports are most impactful in the earliest stages of socialization (Bengtson et al., 2013) and can be set up for principals before they begin their positions as part of a school’s tactical planning for actively socializing an early career principal.

Context-Specific Challenges

In the specific context of Jewish day school, previous research found that the impeding conditions which threatening to derail leadership for day school leaders match those in public schools with additional nuance and complexity specific to Jewish day schools (Kidron et al., 2016). This study further demonstrates that the context of Jewish day schools exacerbates the tension of work-life balance and can constrict religious-spiritual life since the principals are also members of the Jewish community connected to the school. While the tension between being effective in their leadership and their own self-care is not unique to these leaders, the feeling of being always “on” and struggling to find a work-life balance present in a way that highlights and deepens these challenges. Religion and spirituality, often a source of comfort and an oasis away from the stresses of leadership, were part of the challenge of setting professional boundaries for these early career principals. Sarah spoke about “making peace with being a public figure in your own community” in a way that set an appropriate boundary between her professional role and her role as a member of the Jewish community. One area that will be explored in the conclusion is what schools and heads of school can do to mitigate this reality.

In addition to challenges related to being a member of the community they strive to serve, a principal’s position as #2 in most day school structures brings added stress and complexity to the role definition, not present for principals in public schools where they are typically the highest level of leadership in the building. While public school principals typically report to a superintendent who works out of a district office, a day school principal reports to a head of school who works in the school building. Principals in Jewish day schools are responsible for so much and simultaneously are not the final voice in many decisions. The impact of the direct supervisor, in this case the head of school, figured prominently in some of the narratives while it was marginal for other principals. It emerged that a negative or challenging relationship between the principal and their head of school is a significant aspect of their socialization. However, when positive, this relationship is less significant as a source of support than as the absence of the negative stressor of an unsupportive head of school. As early career principals faced the impact of the history of their role they often grappled with the tension between innovation and custodianship, or as Crow and Walker (2006) presented it, a tension between creativity and accountability, in this case to the head of school. In this way, the head of school in particular plays an outsized role in how much the principal will bring creativity into their role and how much they will simply continue the work of their predecessor.

Analysis about narratives should focus not just on what is said but also on what is not said (Janson & McQueen, 2007; Kim, 2015; Lieblich et al., 1998; Rosenthal, 1993). For most participants there was no mention of a structured process for socialization when they entered the principalship. Yehoshua, who had one of the most supportive experiences, still described the “leadership team provided some structure [for support] for it but there was a whole lot of informal, too.” The ideal approach, based on socialization theory, is one that supports principals early and collaboratively identifies their role in leading the school (calibrated appropriately between custodianship and innovation) and helps them create relationships. Such support would include the head of school explicitly discussing the role of the principal and giving feedback on their progress on an ongoing basis. The head of school would also cultivate a strong administrative team that mutually supports each other. These steps are especially important for early career principals, considering that the initial introduction into the role of principal is the most fraught and is also the most influential in terms of how the principal will act in his or her role (Bengtson et al., 2013). It must also be noted that collegiality and collaboration were the foundations of the support systems that were most appreciated by early career principals such as Yehoshua’s relationship with other divisional leaders in his school and Bruriah’s work with her co-principal.

As a final note in the analysis of the results of this study, two limitations exist. First, there is a difficulty in generalizing due to the small sample size and very different school contexts. The second limitation is the challenge in precisely defining “principal.” As previously mentioned, the term principal is not consistent from school to school or historically. Care must be taken in relating the results to the current field. Additionally, titles and leadership structures in schools will continue to change; therefore, the position and responsibilities of principals are moving targets. The research presented here raises issues that transcend particular school structures and cultures. However, specific aspects, such as the fact that the principal is responsible for a great deal but is also not the highest authority within the school, may be different in the future and even currently depending on the specific school context.

Conclusion

While the path for early carer principals is saturated with challenges, these challenges are predictable and can be navigated more successfully through a thoughtful socialization plan coordinated by a supportive head of school. Van Maanen (1978) points out that socialization occurs even if it is not guided thoughtfully by the organization, but that thoughtful guidance is the preferred option. It is notable that none of the participants indicated that there was a clear process of socialization introducing them to the work of principal and helping them to become the leader that best fits their own identity and the needs of the school. This lost opportunity on the part of many schools can be rectified, smoothing socialization for early career principals and contributing to intentionality in molding new leaders. Instead of letting new leaders fend for themselves as they form relationships and decide how much innovation and creativity they will bring to their role, schools can be tactical about providing support and explicitly discuss the role.

The potential for the position of principal to overwhelm those new to the position is clear. Jewish day schools can capitalize on having the head of school in the building, a resource that public school principals do not have. Heads of school can play a significant role in preventing feelings of being overwhelmed and burnout through regular meetings to help principals prioritize and focus. Heads can also help new administrators think through what tasks they should be doing and what might be delegated to others. Making sure these decisions are aligned with the vision for the role and helping to identify who in the school might take on additional tasks contributes both to a feeling of being supported and successful time management for early career principals. Given the negative impact of an unsupportive head of school on an early career principal, heads of school should be especially cognizant of the principal’s perception of their support, planning regular check-ins to discuss what is going well and where more support may be needed in their professional relationship.

Given that principals reported struggling with self-care and seeking support, schools should be thoughtful about setting up this support structure initially. Kidron et al. (2016) found that one of the supporting conditions for successful school leadership in Jewish day schools is close communication within the leadership team. Aside from the existence of such time, how it is utilized is significant. Time dedicated to meeting with other administrators for mutual support, such as sharing a problem of practice, will help create internal support, so important especially in the initial stages of socialization where relationships are beginning to form. This would capitalize on the collegiality that new leaders described as so beneficial. Schools can also facilitate external support for early career principals by cultivating support networks, especially professional cohorts and individual mentoring. Central organizations, such as Prizmah and local Federations, are in the best position to organize these cohorts and provide mentoring, and indeed many of the current programs aimed at support of Jewish day school administrators are run by national organizations. Collaboration with other administrators who understand the role both within and outside the school is a critical step in relieving the loneliness of the role.

Heads of school can also be a source of guidance around balancing home and school life for early career principals. At times, the head may need to be the one to suggest that a principal take time for themselves. Post-COVID, schools are struggling to find sufficient senior leadership and schools may consider dividing up responsibilities such as arrival, morning routines, and dismissal that most directly conflict with family needs to allow for a broader applicant pool (Safran Novogroder & Grebenau, 2022). This may be beneficial for other reasons, as Kidron et al. (2016) previously found that Jewish day school administrative teams felt that sharing leadership tasks across the team better served the school community and allowed them to be better informed.

An important part of the support a head of school can give to early career principals is giving consistent, honest feedback. Leaders, especially women and minorities, often do not get sufficient feedback necessary for their growth (Goleman et al., 2002). Scheduling meeting times specifically to recognize accomplishments and discuss areas of needed growth with early career principals is critical to setting them up for success (Safran Novogroder & Grebenau, 2022). This feedback is part of more explicit socialization and role definition, giving early career principals practical and actionable insight into the leader they are becoming. Further research into what actions and systems feel most supportive for principals, parallel to similar research in Jewish day schools around teacher support (Tamir et al., 2017) can be helpful to further explicate other opportunities for head of school support.

In addition to role definition in the school, the head of school should consider an early career principal’s identity within the larger Jewish community. How the principal is introduced and positions from the outset is important. Heads of school can thoughtfully plan to introduce the new administrator to the whole school community, giving clear messages about roles and authority. The same thoughtfulness should be present in how the principal is introduced to the larger Jewish community. Opportunities can be created in both directions, proactively activating the community to welcome the principal by inviting them for meals on Shabbat and other social interactions.

The commonality of these steps is that they are proactive and provide thoughtful support and guidance to early career principals. When schools demonstrate a willingness to invest time and resources into an early career principal, focusing on areas that are identifiable challenges of their socialization such as struggling with self-care, seeking out a support network and owning their new identity as a principal in the building and the community at large, principals have a better chance of succeeding and remaining in school leadership. When early career principals are supported appropriately, and succeed, ultimately the entire school community and the larger Jewish community are the beneficiaries.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ It should be noted that Chassidic and Yeshiva schools each make up a significant amount (19% for Chassidic and 34% for Yeshiva) of the current count of Jewish day schools (Besser, 2019). While many of the findings and themes likely apply to administrators in many of those schools as well, no administrators from those types of schools were included in this study. Further research would be needed to explore the scope of applicability to Chassidic and Yeshiva schools.

² Raab’s (2006) unpublished dissertation examined leadership turnover in Jewish day schools in Florida from 1994 to 2004 and found that a third of those who left their positions left the field of Jewish education entirely.

³ Collaborative for Applied Studies in Jewish Education (CASJE) recently released a brief (Feuer, 2020) that reexamined data on administrators in Jewish day schools in order to gain insight into the work of second-in-command leaders specifically. This work distinguishes between organizational leaders who spend more time on administrative tasks and instructional leaders who spend more time overseeing teaching and learning in the school. The study does lend insight into how leaders who focus on one area differ from one another. However, since most leaders likely focus on both these areas, it would be more helpful to compare leaders who are more balanced between administrative tasks and teaching and learning, as compared to those whose focus their time on only one of these areas.

⁴ Reform day schools are left off this list since very few schools utilize this label (just over 1% of schools) as opposed to the community day school label (10% of schools) according to the most recent Jewish day school census (Besser, 2019).

⁵ The bands used were taken from the Jewish Day School census (Schick, 2014).

⁶ Community schools support all denominations of Jewish (and sometimes even non-Jewish students).