Inconvenient, but Essential: Impact and Influence of School–Community Involvement on Principals’ Work and Workload D. Cameron Hauseman, Katina Pollock, and Fei Wang Abstract The work of contemporary school principals is intensifying in terms of com- plexity and volume. Many factors moderate and drive such work intensification. More than ever before, school principals are expected to build relationships with organizations and agencies connected to the student and school com- munity. Using findings generated from a large-scale survey of 1,400 Ontario principals, this paper reports on the influence of opportunities for school–com- munity involvement on the work principals do on a daily basis and details how involvement in such activities influences and impacts their workloads. Survey findings indicate that principals are engaged in an average of 4.4 community involvement opportunities at the school level. Almost two-thirds of principals reported that school–community involvement increases their workload. Four ways in which work intensification influences principals’ ventures in school– community involvement are also identified, including how school–community involvement leaves less time for direct instructional leadership practices. Key Words: principals, principals’ workload, instructional leadership, opportu- nities for school–community involvement, work intensification, Canada Introduction The work of contemporary school principals is intensifying in terms of its complexity and volume (Pollock, Wang, & Hauseman, 2015; Spillane, 2015). School Community Journal, 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1 83 Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Many factors moderate, influence, and drive such work intensification, with school–community involvement acting as an antecedent variable influencing both principals and their work. By no means is school–community involvement a new phenomenon (Auerbach, 2010, 2012; Best & Holmes, 2010; Hands, 2010; Koyama, 2011). However, now, more than ever before, principals are expected to build relationships with community organizations and agencies connected to the students and school. Common examples of contemporary school–community relations include breakfast programs and afterschool programs (Durlak, Weissberg, & Pachan, 2010; Scott-Little, Hamann, & Jurs, 2002). School–community involvement can take many forms, including initiatives conducted in concert with local col- leges and universities, businesses, churches, and a variety of other entities (Best & Holmes, 2010; Hands, 2010, 2015; Koyama, 2011; Sanders, 2003). Schools are being encouraged to engage in external relationships for many different reasons, including the generation of additional revenue from renting out building space after school hours, fostering connections to supplementary education services that the school cannot administer, and as a strategy to in- crease student learning and other positive school-based outcomes (Auerbach, 2010, 2012; Beabout, 2010; Clandfield, 2010; Hands, 2005, 2014; Koyama, 2011). There is a robust literature base supporting the notion that school– community involvement can be associated with positive student outcomes, such as increased student achievement in various subjects and decreased tru- ancy (Durlak et al., 2010; Epstein & Salinas, 2004; Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Hands, 2014; Scott-Little et al., 2002; Sheldon & Epstein, 2005; Wright, John, Livingstone, Shepherd, & Duku, 2007). Hands (2010) notes that “school– community collaboration is one possible means for schools to garner financial and material resources, as well as social support and educational experiences to supplement students’ in-school learning” (p. 70). Using findings generated from a large-scale survey of 1,400 principals funded by the Ontario Principals’ Council (OPC), we sought to answer the following research question: How do opportunities for school–community involvement influence principals’ work? School–Community Involvement For the purposes of this article, school–community involvement relates to collaborative endeavors which are important for achieving strategic initiatives or outcomes (Gregoric & Owens, 2015). School–community involvement ex- ists on a continuum, and opportunities can vary in intensity and duration ranging from one-off events to true partnerships and long-term relationships (Auerbach, 2012; Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Sanders, 2003, 2012; Sheldon & Epstein, 2005). 84 SCHOOL–COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT As school–community involvement can be viewed as a means for support- ing student achievement and other positive outcomes, it can be considered one component of a principal’s instructional leadership portfolio (Auerbach, 2010, 2012; Beabout, 2010; Best & Holmes, 2010; Gregoric & Owens, 2015; Hands, 2005, 2010, 2014; Koyama, 2011; Leithwood & Day, 2007; Leithwood, Jant- zi, & Steinbach, 1999; Spillane, 2015; Stewart, 2006). However, opportunities for school–community involvement do not facilitate principals’ direct involve- ment in curriculum and instruction in their daily work (Hands, 2005; Sanders, 2014). For many principals, engaging in school–community involvement re- quires participation in relationship development and maintenance tasks that can, at times, take them away from direct school functions (Hands, 2005; Sanders, 2003, 2014). For example, Hands (2005) states, “the principals take on the role of contact person or at least function in the capacity of decision- maker and gatekeeper for partnerships” (p. 79). Principals experience large and unrelenting workloads, and the time it takes to engage in new job demands such as building relationships and engaging outside groups can add to concerns about workload and work–life balance (Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Sanders, 2003). This increasing workload can be problematic as the impact and sus- tainability of school–community involvement opportunities can be muted by inconsistent (or unwilling) principal leadership (Epstein, Galindo, & Sheldon, 2011; Gregoric & Owens, 2015; Sanders, 2012). Support from the princi- pal can be a significant factor that contributes to effective school–community involvement, especially where student recruitment activities and program im- plementation are concerned (Epstein et al., 2011; Sanders, 2003, 2012, 2014). Further, principals occupy positions of influence in education systems, and the way in which they view school–community involvement can impact others in both their individual schools and in their district as a whole (Sanders, 2014). The Ontario Ministry of Education provides schools and school districts with funding opportunities for developing school–community involvement (Hands, 2014; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2012; People for Education, 2012). Provincial legislation also calls for parent councils at every school, and many school boards have created community engagement offices where tasks related to opportunities for school–community involvement are assigned to district staff or superintendents (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010, 2014; People for Education, 2012). However, in a recent survey, only 28% of Ontario secondary schools and 15% of elementary schools reported having a dedicated staff person, other than the principal or vice-principal, with responsibilities related to school–community involvement (People for Education, 2012). Fur- ther, in schools with designated staff responsible for involvement, only 29% of secondary schools and 18% of elementary schools reported allocating time 85 SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL in the school schedule to develop and maintain school–community involve- ment (People for Education, 2012). The provincial Education Act that governs schooling also indicates that principals are responsible for everything that hap- pens in their schools. Consequently, it is the principal who ultimately becomes responsible for school–community involvement opportunities operating with- in his or her school, regardless of all of the aforementioned supports that may be available (Ontario Education Act, Part 10, Section 265). Facilitating school–community involvement is a relatively new job demand for principals that, along with an increase in the complexity and volume of work-related tasks, contributes to work intensification. The Nature of Work and Work Intensification Also a contested term, “work,” in this context, refers to all of the tasks and actions in which a principal engages that directly (and indirectly) influence the functioning and leadership of the school where she/he is employed (Ap- plebaum, 1992; Fineman, 2003, 2012). Work takes place at or away from the school site and can occur at any time during the day (Applebaum, 1992; Fineman, 2012). Principals’ work is also inherently influenced by policies, pro- grams, and other initiatives intended to drive the work they do at the school site, such as the Ontario Leadership Framework (Institute for Educational Leadership, 2013; Leithwood, 2012). Work intensification is a recent phenomenon experienced by some contem- porary principals (Pollock et al., 2015; Starr & White, 2008). Not only does work intensification involve an increase in the amount of work principals are expected to complete, but also an escalation in the complexity of work-related tasks and duties, all within condensed timelines (Allan, O’Donnell, & Peetz, 1999). Green (2004) defines work intensification as “an increase in the propor- tion of effective labour performed for each hour of work” (p. 709). Similarly, the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA, 2012) describes work intensification as “an employment situation in which work has increased in volume and/or complexity, leaving workers constantly anxious and insecure” (p. 12). Fournier et al. (2011) mention that “the work intensification process is reflected in the increased workload borne by individual workers, where workload is seen as the result of a combination of job or occupational characteristics” (p. 3). Not only is work intensification stronger in public organizations (Green, 2004), but ed- ucators are also more likely to experience clashes between working time and social and emotional commitments outside of work (Yu, 2014). Work inten- sification in the K–12 education sector is comprised of a number of different components: (a) extending work hours; (b) speeding up the pace at which work must be performed; (c) the proliferation of information and communications 86 SCHOOL–COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT technology; (d) growing bureaucracy; (e) the increasing diversity of the stu- dent population and the complexity of contemporary student needs; and (f) the possibility that work intensification might lead to the work not being done at all to the detriment of the clientele being served (ATA, 2012; Green, 2004; Willis et al., 2015). Rationing effort, reprioritizing tasks, and/or simply not completing a job assignment are all associated with work intensification. Contemporary conceptions of work intensification have been linked to con- sequences far more serious than rationed or missed work. For example, work intensification leads to negative consequences for employees “as measured by job satisfaction and by indices of affective well-being” (Green, 2004, p. 710) and is strongly related to psychosomatic complaints amongst the workforce (Franke, 2015). Work intensification—an expectation that workers can pro- vide quality service and complete their work within tight timelines—can lead to role conflict, job stress, and often forces workers to choose between quality and productivity (Fournier et al., 2011). Burnout and work addiction are two psychological issues which can occur as a result of work intensification (Fourni- er et al., 2011). That said, there is evidence to suggest that different educators will respond to and experience work intensification in different ways, including developing innovative and proactive strategies for managing workload (Ballet & Keltchermans, 2009). Email has been cited as a facilitator of much of the work intensification experienced by principals (Haughey, 2006; Pollock et al., 2015) because, “in addition to aiding the filling up of gaps during normal work time, informa- tion and communication technologies also raise the productivity potential of work done outside those hours” (Green, 2004, p. 716). Employees have little experience coping with work intensification as it has been characterized as a new job demand (Franke, 2015), potentially increasing negative and/or un- intended consequences (ATA, 2012; Ballet & Keltchermans, 2009; Fournier et al., 2011; Franke, 2015; Green, 2004; Willis et al., 2015). For example, “multitasking is a widespread but ineffective mechanism for coping with work intensification” (ATA, 2012, p. 17). Furthermore, “work intensification and its consequences affect the internal and external resources available to workers and management for coping with work constraints” (Fournier et al., 2011, p. 4). The current study adds to this emergent theme in the literature by identifying factors that may contribute to principals’ work intensification, in particular, how school–community connection intensifies principals’ work. Methods A mixed methods research design consisting of two parts was utilized to gather data for this study (Creswell, 2005; Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2005). The first 87 SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL part of the research design consisted of focus groups to refine survey questions and to establish reliability and validity (McLeod, Meagher, Steinert, & Bou- dreau, 2000; Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003), while part two was the online survey, which included both Likert-style and some open-ended questions. Dis- cussion of the research methods used in this study begins with an account of the focus group session in which the online survey was pilot tested. The process used to develop and refine the online survey tool is then discussed in detail. Descriptions of the sampling procedures and the demographic characteristics of the sample follow. The methodology concludes with a short explanation of the steps undertaken to analyze the data. Focus Groups Three different focus group sessions containing eight principals each were conducted to inform the development of the online survey. Utilizing focus groups with the population under study is an effective strategy to assess the reliability and validity of surveys and survey questions (McLeod et al., 2000; Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). OPC assisted in recruiting principals; focus group participants were current principals from three different school districts that responded to a call for participation. Participants in the focus groups in- cluded principals of both genders, as well as individuals with differing levels of experience in the role. Principals working in rural, suburban, and urban school settings were all represented. Each focus group lasted approximately two hours. During the first hour, principals were asked to complete a draft version of the online survey. In the second hour of the focus group, participants were asked to provide feedback on the content of the questions and the overall structure of the survey. The focus groups served as a quality assurance piece to increase the reliability and validity of the survey. Participating principals’ insights and feed- back helped to ensure that the survey questions were appropriate and that the survey itself was representative of the work they do on a daily basis. Online Survey The online survey was designed to best represent the broad range of tasks, responsibilities, behaviors, and practices expected of contemporary principals. The survey was revised a number of times to achieve this goal. To ensure a comprehensive understanding of the factors that impact principals and their work, the survey development process began by reviewing the literature sur- rounding the topic, as well as recent changes in jurisdictional education policy. Further revisions were suggested by the funding agency and by a pilot group of six principals in a focus group setting prior to the three focus groups described above. The survey included a total of 60 questions, comprised of both Likert- 88 SCHOOL–COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT type questions and open-ended questions that allowed participants to expand on their responses. Questions were related to 12 different topics, including how principals spend their time, duties and responsibilities of contemporary principals, accountability and external influences, challenges and possibilities, well-being and job satisfaction, work and life balance, supports, how the On- tario Leadership Framework reflects their work, professional development, and school–community involvement. The survey also sought information concern- ing principals’ personal demographic information as well as asking questions about their school(s) and the surrounding community. Two of the questions about school–community involvement that appeared are displayed in Figure 1. Figure 1. Survey questions regarding opportunities for school–community in- volvement. This article focuses only on results gathered from the section of the on- line survey which dealt with school–community involvement, comprised of the two questions displayed in Figure 1. The survey offered principals the op- portunity to qualify their responses by providing additional comments when answering certain questions or/and when they had completed the survey. The survey achieved a response rate of 52.68%. The response rate is based on 1,434 completed surveys available for analysis after accounting for missing data and eliminating ineligible respondents. Description of the Sample Access to participants was gained through the OPC. Survey invitations were sent to all public school principals who were members of the OPC at the time of data collection. A total of 62.8% of the principals who responded 89 SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL to the online survey self-identified as female, while the remaining 36.2% of participants self-identified as male. Further, 77.3% of principals worked in el- ementary school contexts, while 16.4% were secondary principals, and 2.9% were principals of both elementary and secondary schools. The average number of years of experience as a principal for the total sample was 7.6 years. Respon- dents’ average school size was 493 students, and school sizes ranged from 25 to approximately 2,200 students. Participating principals also reported a wide variance in their highest level of formal education; for example, 54.3% of re- spondents indicated they had obtained a Master’s degree in addition to their undergraduate degrees. An additional 41.6% of the sample reported holding a bachelor’s degree as the highest level of formal education they had complet- ed. Only 2.4% of principals in this sample indicated that they have earned a professional degree, such as a law degree, while only 1.3% have completed a doctorate or another terminal degree. Ontario principals who participated in the online survey worked in a va- riety of demographic contexts. For example, 35.6% of the sample indicated that they were employed at schools located in cities with between 100,000 to 1,000,000 people, while 17.9% of participating principals worked at schools located in areas with populations ranging from 15,000 to about 100,000 peo- ple. Schools in large, metropolitan cities with over 1,000,000 people were also represented in the sample, as 15.8% of respondents were employed in those settings. Principals working in schools located in small towns with between 3,000 to 15,000 people accounted for 13.2% of the sample, and 14.6% of respondents reported being employed in rural schools with fewer than 3,000 people in the surrounding communities. A further 1.3% of respondents indi- cated working in other types of population centers. The vast majority of principals (91.4%) self-identified as heterosexual. A total of 3.4% of principals who responded to the online survey self-identified as gay or lesbian, with 2.7% selecting that they would prefer not to disclose this information. Smaller numbers of participants self-identified as bisexual and transgendered (each under 1% of the sample). Another area where the survey sample lacked diversity was in terms of ethnicity, as 92.5% of the entire sample self-identified as Caucasian. Only 1.6% of the sample self-identified as Black, and 1.3% self-identified as South Asian. While the survey respon- dents are representative of the Ontario principal population, these numbers are not representative of the general population where the study was conducted, as approximately 25% of Ontario’s general population self-identifies as being non-Caucasian (Ontario Ministry of Finance, 2013). Criteria to assess the rep- resentativeness of the sample are chosen based on prior knowledge of the target population (distribution of gender, school type, and school size), that is, the 90 SCHOOL–COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT principal membership of OPC. OPC President messages, e-newsletters, and emails were sent out to participants every week to solicit a better representation of principals based on the known criteria. Attributes such as gender, school type, and school size of respondents and nonrespondents were compared dur- ing data collection to ensure sample representativeness. Data Analysis The data analysis process for this study involved two phases. Phase one in- volved analyzing the questions surrounding community involvement using descriptive statistics (Pollock, 2015; Pollock et al., 2015; Springer, 2010). The descriptive statistical analyses were conducted to determine the central tenden- cy of variables. SPSS 21 was the statistical analysis program utilized to analyze all quantitative data which arose from this study. Phase two of the data analysis process involved analyzing the qualitative data gathered as part of the online survey. A total of 1,241 unique qualitative responses related to school–community involvement were derived from the survey questions. The constant comparative method was utilized to analyze the qualitative data (Savin-Baden & Major, 2012). This means that the re- sponses were initially read in an effort to identify any recurrent themes. Each of these themes was assigned a code named after the theme. The qualitative responses were then read again in an effort to develop categories and subcat- egories, which involved grouping together and breaking apart codes developed in the first stage of the constant comparative analysis process (Savin-Baden & Major, 2012). Throughout the survey, these recurrent themes identified in the responses focused on the emotional aspects of the position, as well as el- ements of work intensification faced by contemporary principals, including community relations, email, and accountability. The key recurrent theme in the qualitative data directly related to school–community relations included an expansion of principals’ workload. Other themes included principals indi- cating that school–community involvement is simply an element of their daily work and the perceived positive impact that school–community involvement has on students and the school as a whole. Findings The descriptive statistics related to how school–community involvement influences principals’ work are discussed first. Then the findings from the 1,241 unique qualitative responses derived from the survey questions related to school–community involvement are described in detail. It is important to mention that we only compare principals based on school type (elementary, 91 SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL secondary) throughout the findings because this variable is associated with dif- ferences in the number of opportunities for school–community involvement principals engage in as part of their daily work. We did not find any statistically significant differences in either the nature of or the number of opportunities for school–community involvement based on other variables (e.g., urban vs. rural, school size, student composition, etc.). Table 1. Average Number and Range of School–Community Involvement Opportunities Entire Elementary Secondary Sample Principals Principals Average # of school–community involvement 4.4 3.9 6.9 opportunities in which principals are engaged Range of school–community involvement op- 0 to 33 0 to 25 0 to 33 portunities in which principals are engaged Table 1 outlines the number of opportunities for school–community in- volvement participating principals engage in at their school(s). Analysis of the quantitative data indicates that principals who responded to the survey are involved in an average of 4.4 school–community initiatives. However, as mentioned above, the number of opportunities for school–community in- volvement principals engage in varies by the type of school in which they are employed. For example, elementary school principals reported that they are in- volved in an average of 3.9 opportunities for school–community involvement. With an average of 6.9, principals of secondary schools appear to be involved in substantially more school–community involvement opportunities than elementary school principals. There are also great variations in the range of op- portunities for school–community involvement principals and schools engage in. For example, the number of school–community involvement opportunities elementary school principals engaged in ranged from 0 to 25. The number of opportunities for school–community involvement secondary school principals engaged in ranged from a low of 0 to a high of 33. As displayed in Table 2, 57.4% of secondary school principals indicated that they are involved in less than five opportunities for school–community involve- ment, while this was the case for 80.3% of elementary school principals who responded to the survey. Overall, 75.8% of the sample reported involvement in less than five opportunities at the school level. A total of 15.3% of elementary principals and 20.4% of secondary principals indicated that their schools were involved in six to ten opportunities for school–community involvement. Only 4.8% of the entire sample of principals that participated in the survey work in 92