7.2 To What Extent Does the Assistant Principal Influence Other Roles?
7.2.2 Student Engagement
support, but they were less inclined to express agreement that the assistant principal had helped them be more effective as counselors in their support of teachers via classroom guidance lessons. Goal clarity coaches and teachers expressed the least support for the notion that assistant principals were enabling counselors to provide more effective teacher support. In addition, goal clarity coaches were generally tepid regarding the assertion that principals were spending more time providing teachers feedback on instruction.
The work of the AP (administrative support, instructional leadership, school operations, and student support) as reported across all four groups did have a positive, statistically significant relationship with the elements of teacher support provided by the counselor and the principal. (See Technical Appendix for further analysis.) These scales had stronger correlations to principal time spent providing instructional feedback than to the ability of the counselor to support teachers through
classroom guidance lessons. Thus, there is some evidence that the work of the AP was resulting in improved perceptions of teacher support.
delegated to the counselor. Moreover, the counselor was involved in student behavior management more as a disciplinarian than in an emotionally supportive role. This dynamic was often seen as detrimental to the counselor’s ability
to form trusting, positive relationships with students. “The counselor did all the discipline [before the addition of the AP role]. They were the bad guy instead of the support [for students]. Now, they can be counselors,” noted one principal.
Figure 15: Student Engagement – Counselor-Student Relationships
Thus, the assistant principal role relieved the counselor from being primarily responsible for enforcing student discipline. Instead, counselors now have more freedom to engage students as a resource for support and meeting social, emotional, and academic needs. However, as was the case with teacher support, based on our survey, we also found that between groups, there
was not the same degree of agreement regarding how the assistant principal role was influencing the work of the principal and counselor in engaging with students. Figure 15, 16, 17, and 18 show the variation in responses between principals, assistant principals, counselors, and goal clarity coaches.
Figure 16: Student Engagement – Principal-Student Relationships
Again, we compared the perspectives of the core unit of the administrative team, its generalists, principals and assistant principals.
Overwhelmingly, principal and assistant principals believed that principals and counselors were
building stronger student relationships and that counselors were able to be a more effective support to students through one-on-one counseling sessions. We found that they were in general agreement in their views regarding the
11.1% 7.9%
1.9% 2.2%
5.6% 10.5%
13.5% 8.7%
27.8% 36.8%
40.4%
41.3%
22.2%
34.2%
44.2% 47.8%
33.3%
10.5%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Principal AP Counselor GCC
Counselor builds stronger student relationships
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
11.1% 5.3%
1.9% 2.2%
2.8% 10.5%
17.3%
8.9%
33.3% 34.2%
26.9% 42.2%
22.2%
34.2%
53.8% 46.7% 30.6% 15.8%
0.0%
50.0%
100.0%
Principal AP Counselor GCC
Principal builds stronger student relationships
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
assistant principal’s influence on student engagement.
Then we compared the view of the two specialty roles, counselors and goal clarity coaches. Though counselors were marginally more
supportive of these statements, none of the differences were statistically significant at conventional levels. Both groups hovered between agreement and ambivalence on these items related to student engagement.
Figure 17: One-on-One Counseling
Finally, we compared the views of principals and counselors, as long-standing roles in the administration of elementary schools versus the comparison between the newly added roles of assistant principal and goal clarity coaches. Unlike teacher support, where the principals and counselors appeared to agree on one of the three elements for which we collected data, their views were completely divergent on the issue of student engagement based on these results. Principals
tended to express agreement for each statement much more strongly than counselors. Counselors tended to be split between agreement and ambivalence on the proposition that the role of the assistant principal had enabled either them or the principal to offer greater support to students through their engagement in relationship building and direct counseling. (See Technical Appendix for further analysis.)
Figure 18: Student Support
In summary, the survey responses supported the finding that the work of the AP has influenced the work of the principal and the
counselor around student engagement. Principals and assistant principals tended to more strongly agree that the work of the AP helped principals and
16.7% 10.5% 15.0%
1.9% 2.2%
11.1% 18.4% 23.8%
15.4% 15.2%
19.4% 26.3%
25.1%
38.5% 32.6%
25.0%
31.6% 25.1%
44.2% 50.0%
27.8% 13.2% 11.0%
0.0%
50.0%
100.0%
Principal AP Counselor GCC Teacher
Counselor time for one-on-one counseling
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
17.6%
1.9% 7.9%
5.9%
13.5% 10.9% 7.9%
11.8% 28.9%
40.4%
37.0%
32.4%
42.1%
44.2%
52.2%
32.4%
13.2%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Principal AP Counselor GCC
Student Engagement - Counselor more effective student support
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
counselors build stronger relationships with students. Moreover, the principal and assistant principal also agreed that the assistant principal role was helping the counselor to conduct more one-on-one counseling with students and be more effective in supporting students. Counselors did not express the same level of agreement with the notion that the assistant principal role was positively affecting engagement with students.
Thus, counselors were not aligned with the principal and assistant principal viewpoint. As we noted earlier, goal clarity coaches and teachers expressed the least support for the notion that assistant principals were enabling principals and counselors to engage with students more meaningfully and frequently.
The work of the AP scales did have a positive, statistically significant relationship with the elements of student engagement included in our survey. The correlation coefficients ranged
from .34 to .62 and were significant at conventional levels. (See Technical Appendix for further analysis.) Thus, we conclude that although the work of the AP has positively influenced the principal’s and counselor’s ability to engage in support for students, that influence is less pronounced with counselors.