A survey of the health of Victorian primary school
principals
Rod Green
Senior Lecturer, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
Susan Malcolm
Senior Lecturer, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
Ken Greenwood
La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
Michael Small
Victorian Primary Principals Association, North Melbourne, Australia
Gregory Murphy
La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
Introduction
There is a large body of literature
internationally which has documented the high prevalence of stress and burnout in the teaching profession (Kyriacou, 1987). The majority of this research relates to classroom teachers while comparatively few papers report on stress amongst school principals (Tung and Koch, 1980; Cooperet al., 1988; Savery and Detiuk, 1986). One study which has examined stressors amongst school principals and other school administrators indicated that the major stressors for principals related to the following four dimensions in decreasing order of importance: role-based stress, task-based stress, conflict-mediating stress and boundary-spanning stress (Tung and Koch, 1980). Principals scored higher than region-based administrators on all of these dimensions except boundary-spanning, which relates to the interaction between the school and the external environment. A survey of Western Australian principals found that primary principals had higher stress levels than secondary principals (Savery and Detiuk, 1986). Another study attempted to correlate continuously monitored heart rate as an indicator of physiological stress to principal behaviour, and found variations in heart rate related to personality type (Cooperet al., 1988).
Despite concerns about the relationship between occupational stress and stress-related illness (Cooper and Marshall, 1976; Kyriacou, 1987; Savery and Detiuk, 1986), there has been far less work conducted on the general health characteristics of teachers and, again, even less relating to the health status of principals (Smithet al., 1988). One report using self-report of health
characteristics on the multidimensional
General Wellbeing Questionnaire suggested that principals had above average health status (Smithet al., 1988). This study reported that principals had low drug (tobacco, alcohol) usage, but some health behaviours, particularly diet and exercise needed to be improved. Another study involving self-report of various stress-related illnesses found a higher incidence of stress-related illness, particularly amongst primary principals, than the general population (Savery and Detiuk, 1986).
There is evidence that prolonged
occupational stress can lead to both mental and physical ill-health (Kyriacou, 1987; Cooper and Marshall, 1976), and a study of school administrators revealed a strong inverse relationship between stress levels and self-reported physical health status (Tung and Koch, 1980). Concern about high stress levels amongst teachers in part relates to the cost of workers' compensation and potentially the loss of staff through associated ill-health retirement (Kyriacou, 1987). Such concerns about consequent workers' compensation claims led to the instigation of a government initiated report in Victoria, Australia (University of Melbourne Applied Psychology Research Group, 1990). This report included 47 specific recommendations to reduce teacher stress; however one general comment of interest in the recommendations section was that ``the Ministry (of Education) should slow the perceived rate of change, and so reduce the extent to which it creates uncertainty in the school environment'' (University of
Melbourne Applied Psychology Research Group, 1990).
Well-documented changes in public education, both internationally and in Australia, over the last decade have involved devolution of financial, staffing and planning processes from Departments of Education to individual schools (Cranston, 1994; Caldwell, 1992). The introduction in 1993 of the Schools of The Future (SoF) program in government The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft The International Journal of
Educational Management 15/1 [2001] 23±30
#MCB University Press [ISSN 0951-354X]
Keywords
Teachers, Education, Schools, Surveys
Abstract
In recent years responsibility for the administration of schools internationally has shifted from education departments towards self-governing schools. This trend has resulted in major changes to the role of school principals. Such changes in role may impact on the psychological and physical health of principals, but there has been very little research into this population. A survey of the health and wellbeing of a representative sample of 50 principals of State primary schools in Victoria, Australia is reported. Subjects completed questionnaires measuring health-related behaviour and stress and arousal levels and participated in comprehensive health appraisals. Principals reported better smoking patterns than the population as a whole. Despite a higher socioeconomic status than the population as a whole, the health status of the principals was not apparently better. Principals reported higher stress levels and worse physical health than a group of white-collar employees of similar socioeconomic status.
schools in the State of Victoria has been typical of this type of change. Such changes have modified the traditional role of the principal to a great extent such that much more managerial, as opposed to the previous administrative, skills are required (Cranston, 1994). It has been suggested that this
increasing responsibility for principals may lead to stress-related illness (Thornton, 1996). In light of the potential impact of these factors on principal stress levels and principal health, and the lack of existing data on the health and health-related behaviour characteristics of school principals, this study was undertaken to ascertain the health status of principals working under the SoF system.
Method
This study was initiated by the Victorian Primary Principals Association (VPPA) out of concern for the overall health and
wellbeing of its members associated with the introduction of SoF. The VPPA's concern related to rapidly changing work practices and lifestyles reported by principals in order to cope with the increased workload, accountability and responsibility inherent in the SoF reforms.
Although the DoE was initiating a free state-wide screening program for principals, the VPPA felt that this program was inadequate to assist principals in maintaining their health and wellbeing in the face of increasing work-related demands. Hence this project involved two stages; a survey of principal health, the results of which are presented in this paper, and the introduction of a comprehensive health promotion (HP) program to improve principal health. The outcomes of the HP program are presented elsewhere (Greenet al., 2000).
The VPPA, the DoE, HBA Health Management (the provider of the health promotion program), and principals in the program made equal contributions to the cost of the program. The initial health survey, which was the first phase of the HP program, took place in March 1996.
Participants
Approximately 1,450 VPPA members were contacted and asked to give an expression of interest in participating in a HP program conducted by an external provider which included a heavily subsidised comprehensive health assessment as a component of a broader HP program. The 99 members who responded comprised approximately 7 percent of this population. After stratifying these respondents on the basis of age, gender
and school location (metropolitan vs. country), 50 participants were randomly selected to match the distribution of all VPPA members and hopefully all principals. This method was adopted in an attempt to make the intervention group representative of the entire principal class in the DoE on the basis of the demographic variables available.
As the program was largely funded by the VPPA and the DoE, the decision was made that participation in the research program would be obligatory for all participants in the HP program. It was recognised that this could dissuade some employees from participating in the HP program, but it was necessary to maximise participant numbers and therefore gain maximum benefit from available funding. This was made explicit in all communications with VPPA members.
The demographic characteristics of the participants (PRIN) and the full DoE population of principal class employees (S. Stephen, DoE, personal communication) are given in Table I. The PRIN group differed from the DoE group only on the basis of seniority (2(2,n= 50) = 22.0,p< 0.001). This
was despite the fact that approximately 33 percent of all VPPA members are assistant principals. The PRIN group represented principals, rather than the broader principal class employee population which includes assistant principals.
All subjects completed an informed consent form and the project had approval from the La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee.
Measures
Participant characteristics were assessed by self-report questionnaire and by physical assessment. All questionnaires were number-coded to ensure anonymity. They were distributed to the PRIN group at the launch of the associated HP program and returned via pre-paid reply envelopes.
The questionnaire has been described in detail elsewhere (Green, 1997), but, for comparative purposes, questions relating to health-related behaviour were drawn from those used in previous health surveys of the Australian population by the National Heart Foundation (NHF) (National Heart
Foundation of Australia, 1991). The questions covered the following four areas: smoking history, exercise patterns in the previous two weeks, alcohol consumption and dietary patterns. In addition the Stress Arousal Checklist was included as a reliable, two dimensional measure of self-reported mood (Gotts and Cox, 1990).
Rod Green, Susan Malcolm, Ken Greenwood,
Michael Small and Gregory Murphy
A survey of the health of Victorian primary school principals
The physical assessment for PRIN subjects was conducted over one and a half hours at the premises of HBA Health Management. It included a full medical examination, 12-lead exercise electrocardiogram, blood pathology, and a number of physical measurements. Subjects were given counselling on the day by medical staff and exercise physiologists regarding their diet and exercise patterns. Further services provided as part of the HP program have been described elsewhere (Greenet al., 2000).
As indicated previously, during the same period that this study was conducted, a screening program was offered to all principal class employees by the DoE. This program was conducted by MBF (as opposed to HBA) Health Management using a mobile testing unit. This program tested 1,507 employees (61 percent of all principal class employees) and the data were provided to the author by the DoE for comparative purposes (O'Halloran, 1997). The number of subjects who may have been involved in both assessments is unknown.
Data analysis
The physical health and health-related behaviour of the principals in this study (PRIN group) were compared with those of three other groups. The first of these was the MBF screening data to ensure that they were representative of the entire principal class. Second, they were compared with
appropriate age-based data for the Victorian population extracted from the most recent National Heart Foundation survey (National Heart Foundation & Australian Institute of Health, 1995). Third, since the socioeconomic status of principals is high relative to the general population, they were compared with
45-49 year-old corporate clients tested at HBA Health Management in the same calendar year. Although the education and income profiles of the latter group are unknown, the HBA database is of similar socioeconomic status to the principals as it comprises, almost exclusively, white-collar employees in middle and senior management (Greenet al., 1995).
In comparing the PRIN, MBF and HBA groups, variables measured on interval or ratio scales of measurement were analysed usingt-tests. Non-parametric data were analysed between groups using tests for independent samples (e.g. Chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis). All chi-square tests involving only one degree of freedom were calculated using Yates' continuity
correction.
All data were inspected to detect problems in their distributions which may have affected the validity of subsequent statistical analyses. Categorical variables with cells containing fewer than five cases were collapsed. The distribution of continuous variables was examined. Variables which deviated significantly from a normal distribution were transformed (square root, reciprocal or logarithm) to minimize skewness prior to subsequent analysis. Skewness was non-significant in 96 percent of transformed variables after transformation. Where the transformation was not sufficient to reduce skewness to acceptable levels, the least skewed transformation was chosen. Transformed variables were used in all subsequent analyses.
Results
Demographic characteristics of the PRIN group in contrast to the general population (NHF data) are presented in Table II. The higher proportion of males employed full time in the PRIN group approached significance (2= 3.5,p= 0.06). The combination of 100 percent full-time employment and higher education and income levels of the PRIN group confirmed their high socioeconomic status in contrast with the general population.
Health-related behaviour and physical and psychological health characteristics of the PRIN and comparison groups are presented separately for males and females in Tables III-VI. Although the trend for PRIN group males to be less likely to smoke than the general population (NHF, Table III) did not achieve significance after adjustment for continuity correction (2= 2.5,p= 0.11), this
may represent an artifact of small subject
Table I
Demographics of the participants (PRIN) and the entire DoE population of principal class officers (MSD, unless specified otherwise)
Variable PRIN (n= 50) DoE (n= 1,758)
Gender (%) male 62 66
Age (years) 47.54.6 N/Ab
Age category (% under 44) 26 31
Age category (% over 49) 36 36
Seniority** (% assistant principals) 6 38
Duration employed (years) 27.75.4 N/Ab
Duration employed as principal (years) 6.55.8 N/Ab
Location at school (% rural) 28 33
Students enrolled at schoola(n= 47) 296145 232
Salaried staff employed at schoola(
n= 47) 19.98.9 16.1
Notes:aOnly mean data available from DoE, so no comparison possible;bNot available;
**PRIN group differs from DoE,p< 0.01 Rod Green, Susan Malcolm,
Ken Greenwood, Michael Small and Gregory Murphy
A survey of the health of Victorian primary school principals
numbers as the NHF group were more likely to smoke than the larger survey of
principals (MBF) and the white-collar comparison group (HBA). A similar trend was evident in the contrast of smoking patterns for females in the PRIN and NHF groups after continuity correction (2= 3.4, p= 0.06, Table IV). In all other health-related behaviours, there was no apparent
difference between the PRIN group and any of the comparison populations for males or females.
There were no differences in height, weight or measures of obesity between the PRIN group and any of the comparison populations
for either males or females (Tables V and VI). Principals, represented by the PRIN, MBF or sometimes both groups had worse scores on blood pressure (systolic for males only), HDL cholesterol, cholesterol ratio, cardiac risk score and both psychological variables (arousal for males only) than the white-collar comparison group (HBA, Tables V and VI). Although the larger survey of principals (MBF) had a lower total cholesterol than the HBA group, their HDL cholesterol was not measured to allow comparison of the cholesterol ratio. Principals did not differ from the general population on any physical characteristics. The cardiac risk score for the
Table III
Health-related behaviour characteristics of male principals (PRIN) and three comparison groups (NHF, HBA and MBF)a
Variable
PRIN (n= 33)
NHF (n= 41)
HBA (n= 317)
MBF
(n= 1,090) sigd
Current smoker (%) 6 22 8 5 2= 24.7**, NHF >
HBA, MBF, HBA > MBF
Alcohol consumptionb(% intermediate
or greater risk)
3 16 N/Ac N/A
2= 1.9, ns
Usual diet (% modified in some way) 58 67 N/A N/A 2= 1.6, ns
Recreational exercise (% participating in vigorous exercise in the last two weeks)
45 24 N/A N/A 2= 2.7, ns
Recreational exercise (% participating in walking exercise in the last two weeks)
58 54 N/A N/A 2= 0.0, ns
No recreational exercise (% none in last two weeks)
12 32 17 17 26:9;ns
Notes: aSee text for details of comparison groups; bHealth risk of alcohol consumption. Classified as none, low, intermediate, high or very high;cNot available;dSignificance of difference between groups: *
p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ns = not significant
Table II
Demographic characteristics of PRIN group in contrast to population normative values for 45-49 year old males and females
Male Female
Variable
PRIN (n= 33)
NHF
(n= 41) sigd
PRIN (n= 17)
NHF
(n= 39) sig4
Birthplace (% Australia) 88 58 26:4* 100 49 2= 11.4**
Education (% post-secondary educateda)
100 34 2= 31.4** 100 20 2= 27.1**
Employed (% full-time) 100 85 2= 3.5, ns 100 54 2= 9.5**
Income (% less than $51,680 (male) or $50,760 (female)p.a.)b,c
0 85 2= 49.1** 0 97 2= 46.2**
Notes:aThis was defined as ``University, CAE or other tertiary institution'', for the NHF study, and includes ``trade certificates'' for PRIN group;bCut-off for top NHF income category (1995 AUS$) adjusted for changes in average weekly earnings (Australian Bureau of Statistics);cThis figure was the total remuneration package for PRIN
subjects, which includes employer superannuation contributions. However, the gross salary of even the lowest paid subjects was still approximately equal to the top NHF category cut-off (depending on employer contributions to superannuation);dSignificance of difference between groups: *
p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ns = not significant
Source:National Heart Foundation in Australia, 1991 Rod Green, Susan Malcolm,
Ken Greenwood, Michael Small and Gregory Murphy
A survey of the health of Victorian primary school principals
PRIN group was positively correlated with stress (r= 0.39,p< 0.01).
The psychological characteristics of the PRIN and HBA groups are presented diagrammatically in Figure 1. The axes on the Stress Arousal Checklist (SACL) quadrant are centred on the mean for a full-time employed Australian population,
and the description of the mood state for each quadrant as described by the authors of the questionnaire (Cox and Griffiths, 1995). Figure 1 shows the coordinates of the subjects with males and females pooled since there was no difference between sexes. There was no relationship between stress and either age or experience.
Table V
Physical and psychological characteristics of male principals (PRIN) and three comparison groups (NHF, HBA and MBF)a
Variable
PRIN (n= 33)
NHF (n= 41)
HBA (n= 317)
MBF
(n= 1,090) sigf
Age (years) 47.74.5 47.91.5 46.91.4 47.65.0 F = 1.98, ns
Height (cm) 175.36.3 173.87.5 177.111.9 N/A F = 0.78, ns
Weight (kg) 82.610.7 81.010.9 83.412.3 N/A F = 0.37, ns
Body mass index (kg/mb) 26.5
3.0 26.53.7 26.43.4 N/A F = 0.00, ns
Waist-to-hip ratio 0.930.05 0.920.08 0.920.06 N/A F = 1.00, ns
Systolic blood pressure (mm Hg) 13314 13416 12714 12813 F = 5.3**, HBA < PRIN, NHF
Diastolic blood pressure (mm Hg) 819 8510 8010 849 F = 24.9**, HBA < NHF, MBF
Cholesterol *mmol/1) 5.770.94 5.531.09 5.851.01 5.591.04 F = 5.6**, MBF < HBA
HDL cholesterolb(mmol/1) 1.060.37 1.120.26 1.220.32 N/A F = 4.3*, PRIN < HBA
Cholesterol ratioc 5.991.99 5.151.52 5.191.74 N/A F = 3.2*, HBA < PRIN
Cardiac risk scored 19.48.9 N/A 15.98.5 N/A t= 23*
Stresse 7.4
5.2 N/A 4.54.7 N/A t= 3.3**
Arousale 7.7
3.5 N/A 9.13.0 N/A t= 2.6*
Notes:aSee text for details of comparison groups;bHigh density lipoprotein cholesterol. The fraction of cholesterol which serves a preventive role
in terms of cardiovascular disease;cCholesterol ratio = cholesterol/HDL cholesterol. Higher results indicate increased risk of cardiovascular
disease;dCardiac risk score (arbitrary units). Calculated on the basis of known risk factors measured during the assessment. Risk classification:
0-8 = ``low''; 9-16 = ``below average''; 17-23 = ``average''; 24-31 = ``above average''; > 31 = ``high'';eStress arousal checklist (SACL) typical scale (Mackayet al., 1978). Response to 30 scale items, resulting in a score from 0-12 for arousal and 0-18 for stress;fSignificance of difference between groups: *p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ns = not significant
Table IV
Health-related behaviour characteristics of female principals (PRIN) and three comparison groups (NHF, HBA and MBF)a
Variable
PRIN (n= 17)
NHF (n= 39)
HBA (n= 26)
MBF
(n= 417) sigd
Current smoker (%) 6 33 8 5 2= 41.7**, NHF >
HBA, MBF
Alcohol consumptionb(% intermediate or greater risk)
12 10 N/Ac N/A 2= 0.0, ns
Usual diet (% modified in some way) 29 38 N/A N/A 2= 0.1, ns
Recreational exercise (% participating in vigorous exercise in the last two weeks)
18 18 N/A N/A 2= 0.0, ns
Recreational exercise (% participating in walking exercise in the last two weeks)
71 59 N/A N/A 2= 0.3, ns
No recreational exercise (% none in last two weeks)
24 36 4 21 2= 11.0,* NHF > HBA
Notes:aSee text for details of comparison groups;bHealth risk of alcohol consumption. Classified as none, low,
intermediate, high or very high;cNot available;dSignificance of difference between groups: *
p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ns = not significant
Rod Green, Susan Malcolm, Ken Greenwood,
Michael Small and Gregory Murphy
A survey of the health of Victorian primary school principals
Discussion
As indicated above, the low proportion of assistant principals in the PRIN group means that the results presented here reflect principal health rather than the health of all principal class employees. Sixty-one percent of all principal class employees participated in the MBF survey (O'Halloran, 1997), but the classification levels of this group were unknown. However, as the mean age of the PRIN and MBF health survey groups is identical for males and females, the MBF survey may also have been
under-represented in terms of assistant principals. Although there were no differences in the health related behaviour, physical or psychological health characteristics of the PRIN and MBF groups, the lower total cholesterol of the MBF males in contrast with the HBA males (in the absence of any difference for the PRIN group) may be due to the methodology adopted in the two surveys. It has been suggested previously that cholesterol measured in a whole blood sample (as used in the MBF survey) is likely to be up to 10 percent lower than that measured from serum samples (as used in the other three groups) (Kingeryet al., 1994). The lack of difference between these two groups on any parameters may relate to the small sample numbers in the PRIN group, but given the relatively high representation of
principal class employees in the MBF survey (61 percent) it would appear that the results of this survey accurately represent the health of Victorian principals.
The high socioeconomic status of the PRIN group was indicated by their education and income levels compared with the NHF group and was consistent with the high proportion of the PRIN group born in Australia. High socioeconomic status is typically associated with better health status and better health-related behaviour (Australian Institute of Health, 1990; Marmot, 1994). The
socioeconomic status of the PRIN group was consistent with lower smoking rates but no other health-related behaviour (although the comparative measure of diet used here is very limited). However, the health status of Victorian principals was no better than that of the average population, as represented by the NHF group and appears to be worse than that of a comparative group of similar socioeconomic status (HBA). The low incidence of smoking and the need for better exercise and dietary behaviour are in agreement with previous surveys of
principal health (Smithet al., 1988). However, the comparatively poor health status of principals in this study contrasts with previous self-reports of above average health status (Smithet al., 1988). The current findings may be related to the high stress levels reported, as previous work has found
Table VI
Physical and psychological characteristics of female principals (PRIN) and three comparison groups (NHF, HBA and MBF)a
Variable
PRIN (n= 17)
NHF (n= 39)
HBA (n= 26)
MBF
(n= 417) sigf
Age (years) 47.15.0 47.61.5 46.71.3 47.25.1 F = 0.17, ns
Height (cm) 163.06.4 162.56.3 163.86.2 N/A F = 0.07, ns
Weight (kg) 69.311.8 73.013.2 64.213.7 N/A F = 0.93, ns
Body mass index (kg/mb) 25.85.4 27.14.4 23.84.2 N/A F = 0.83, ns
Waist-to-hip ratio 0.790.05 0.790.07 0.770.06 N/A F = 0.59, ns
Systolic blood pressure (mm Hg) 13117 12716 12112 12314 F = 2.6, ns
Diastolic blood pressure (mm Hg) 8314 809 739 809 F = 5.4**, HBA < NHF, MBF, PRIN
Cholesterol *mmol/1) 5.781.02 5.261.05 5.220.74 5.3710.96 F = 1.4, ns
HDL cholesterolb(mmol/1) 1.330.44 1.400.26 1.620.40 N/A F = 4.2*, PRIN < HBA
Cholesterol ratioc 4.751.68 3.881.11 3.431.10 N/A F = 5.6*, HBA < PRIN
Cardiac risk scored 17.4
7.6 N/A 11.17.3 N/A t= 27*
Stresse 7.5
5.2 N/A 3.04.2 N/A t= 3.1**
Arousale 8.8
3.0 N/A 7.53.8 N/A t= 1.2, ns
Notes:aSee text for details of comparison groups;bHigh density lipoprotein cholesterol. The fraction of cholesterol which serves a preventive role
in terms of cardiovascular disease;cCholesterol ratio = cholesterol/HDL cholesterol. Higher results indicate increased risk of cardiovascular disease;dCardiac risk score (arbitrary units). Calculated on the basis of known risk factors measured during the assessment. Risk classification: 0-8 = ``low''; 9-16 = ``below average''; 17-23 = ``average''; 24-31 = ``above average''; > 31 = ``high'';eStress arousal checklist (SACL) typical scale (Mackayet al., 1978). Response to 30 scale items, resulting in a score from 0-12 for arousal and 0-18 for stress;fSignificance of difference between groups: *p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ns = not significant
Rod Green, Susan Malcolm, Ken Greenwood,
Michael Small and Gregory Murphy
A survey of the health of Victorian primary school principals
that higher stress levels are associated with poor self-reported health status amongst principals (Tung and Koch, 1980). The relationship between stress levels and cardiac risk score in the current study is consistent with this.
Previous reports have suggested that teachers have very high occupational stress levels (Cox and Brockley, 1984). The high stress scores for the principals in this study may indicate similarly high levels amongst principals and also reflect the change in role of the principal under the organisational changes inherent in the SoF program. Over 30 years ago, Kahnet al.clearly identified role changes as significantly correlated with such important emotional and behavioural reactions as less job satisfaction, less confidence in the larger organisation and less interaction with other role senders in the organisation (Kahnet al., 1964). The current findings are consistent with the changed role of the principal with the devolution of responsibilities from an Education Department to individual self-managing schools (Cranston, 1994). Although in this study only a single measure of stress was measured, it may be expected that the SoF changes would increase the role-related stress and also boundary-spanning stress which was previously in the domain of the Education department (Tung and Koch, 1980). There has been a shift in recruitment policies for principals in that merit and ability now take precedence over seniority and
experience (Cranston, 1994). Such changes may mean that a ``new breed'' of principals
capable of working under the changed school conditions is being employed. However, recent international evidence suggests that many primary school principals received very little training for their new role prior to commencing as a principal (Dunning, 1996). Assuming that adequate training is provided, the problems reported in this study may diminish with time. However, the lack of relationship between stress and either age or years of experience as a principal does not support this proposition. This analysis may be somewhat simplistic because if a multidimensional measure of stress is conducted it is apparent that, while task-related stress may decrease with age and experience, boundary-spanning stress may increase (Tung and Koch, 1980). Regardless of the precise nature and extent of these temporal correlates of stress, for those principals still adjusting to change assistance in coping with the new expectations may be required.
Conclusion
Principals in Victorian primary schools reported lower smoking prevalence than the typical Victorian population but were no better than the general population on a number of other health-related behaviours. The lower smoking prevalence is consistent with their high socioeconomic status relative to the remainder of the population but, perhaps because of the lack of other improvements in health-related behaviour, was not reflected in better health status. Their cardiovascular health status was worse than a group of similar socioeconomic status and may be related to the higher stress levels reported by the principals in contrast to a group of similar socioeconomic status. The high stress levels may have been associated with the introduction of the SoF self-governance programs introduced prior to this health survey. Regular surveys of the physical and psychological health status of principals are required so as to better understand the relationship of occupational stress to key indices of healthy living in this important group of educational leaders.
References and further reading
Australian Institute of Health (1990),Australia's Health, Australian Institute of Health. Caldwell, B. (1992), ``The principal as leader of the
self-managing school in Australia'',Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 30, pp. 6-19. Cooper, B., Sieverding, J. and Muth, R. (1988),
``Principals' management behaviour, personality types and psychological stress'',
Figure 1
Typical mood stress arousal checklist coordinates for PRIN and HBA groups (males and females pooled)
Rod Green, Susan Malcolm, Ken Greenwood,
Michael Small and Gregory Murphy
A survey of the health of Victorian primary school principals
The Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 26, pp. 197-219.
Cooper, C.L. and Marshall, J. (1976),
``Occupational sources of stress: a review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental health'',Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 11-28. Cox, T. and Brockley, T. (1984), ``The experience
and effects of stress in teachers'',British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 83-7. Cox, T. and Griffiths, A. (1995), ``The nature and
measurement of work stress: theory and practice'', in Wilson, J.R. and Corlett, E.N. (Eds),Evaluation of Human Work, Taylor & Francis, Washington, DC, pp. 783-803. Cranston, N. (1994), ``Strategic management in
schools: a new role for the principal'',Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 32, pp. 100-9.
Dunning, G. (1996), ``Preparing for primary school management: training providers, task preparation and support ± perceptions of new teachers'',International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol. 10, pp. 33-43. Gotts, G. and Cox, T. (1990),Stress and Arousal Checklist. A Manual for its Administration, Scoring and Interpretation, Swinburne Press, Melbourne.
Green, R., Lang, J. and Hatcher, D. (1995), ``Fitness testing'', in Zuluaga, M., Briggs, C., Carlisle, J., McDonald, V., McMeeken, J., Nickson, W., Oddy, P. and Wilson, D. (Eds), Sports Physiotherapy: Applied Science and Practice, Churchill Livingstone, Melbourne, pp. 161-79.
Green, R., Malcolm, S., Greenwood, K. and Murphy, G. (2001), ``Impact of a health promotion program on the health of primary school principals'',International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 31-8.
Green, R.A. (1997),Benefits of Worksite Health Promotion in Australia, PhD Thesis, La Trobe University, Melbourne, p. 500.
Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R. and Shoek, J. (1964), Organisational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, Wiley, New York, NY. Kingery, P.M., Ellsworth, C.G., Corbett, B.S.,
Bowden, R.G. and Brizzolara, J.A. (1994),
``High-cost analysis: a closer look at the case for work-site health promotion'',Journal of Occupational Medicine, Vol. 36, pp. 1341-7. Kyriacou, C. (1987), ``Teacher stress and burnout:
an international review'',Educational Research, Vol. 29, pp. 146-52.
Mackay, C.J., Cox, T., Burrows, G.C. and Lazzerini, A.J. (1978), ``An inventory for the measurement of self-reported stress and arousal'',British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 17, pp. 283-4. Marmot, M. (1994), ``Work and other factors
influencing coronary health and sickness absence'',Work & Stress, Vol. 8, pp. 191-201. National Heart Foundation & Australian Institute
of Health (1995), ``The risk factor prevalence survey, 1989'', Social Sciences Data Archives, Australian National University, Canberra. National Heart Foundation of Australia (1991),
Risk Factor Prevalence Study No. 3, 1989: Cities Analysis, National Heart Foundation of Australia & Australian Institute of Health, Canberra.
O'Halloran, P. (1997),MBF Cardiovascular Testing of Principal Class Officers, Directorate of School Education (Victoria). Savery, L. and Detiuk, M. (1986), ``The perceived
stress levels of primary and secondary school principals'',The Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 24, pp. 272-81. Smith, D.W., Bibeau, D.L., Altschuld, J.W. and
Heit, P. (1988), ``Health-related characteristics of selected school principals'',Journal of School Health, Vol. 58, pp. 397-400. Thornton, P. (1996), ``The physiological,
psychological and work stress of primary school principals'',International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 10, pp. 42-55. Tung, R.L. and Koch, J.L. (1980), ``School
administrators: sources of stress and ways of coping with it'', in Cooper, C.L. and
Marshall, J. (Eds),White-Collar and Professional Stress, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 63-91.
University of Melbourne Applied Psychology Research Group (1990),Teacher Stress in Victoria, a Survey of Teachers' Views: The Rreport, Ministry of Education, Victoria, Melbourne.
Rod Green, Susan Malcolm, Ken Greenwood,
Michael Small and Gregory Murphy
A survey of the health of Victorian primary school principals
