Page 1 of 11
60
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol.7, No.10
Publication Date: October 25, 2020
DOI:10.14738/assrj.710.9182.
Wang, R., & Huang, Y. (2020). Establishing a Set of Professional Standards for Principals in Taiwan. Advances in Social Sciences Research
Journal, 7(10) 60-70.
Establishing a Set of Professional Standards for Principals in Taiwan
Ru-Jer Wang
National Taichung University of Education,
Yueh-Chun Huang
Graduate Institute of Educational Administration and Policy Development
National Chiayi University
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to formulate a set of professional standards
for principals in Taiwan. The research methodology employed was fuzzy
Delphi. An initial set of 52 standards was formulated and then revised
by a panel of 20 experts. Main findings of this study are: the standards
are divided into four dimensions: professional knowledge (14
standards), value and vision (11 standards), professional attitude (14
standards), and professional behavior and performance (13 standards).
The standards established by this study can be a useful tool for the
recruitment of future school principals and a useful instrument for the
evaluation of current school principals due to the fact that Taiwan
currently lacks a standardized set of professional standards for school
principals. This study provided a good example for formulating a set of
professional standards for school principals suited to a certain country
for having taken its specific local context into account and having
learned from the sets of standards in use elsewhere as well.
Keywords: professional standards; principal; Taiwan; fuzzy Delphi
RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Principal leadership has increasingly become one of the main focuses in education reforms across
countries over the past decades (Pont, Nusche, & Moorman, 2008; UNESCO & SPBEA, 2020). Recent
studies have identified that student learning gains occurred as a result of such initiatives only when
the principal in charge holds the belief that improvement is possible, and have also found the
substantial role that an effective principal plays in the academic success of students due to the fact
that principals create stimulating learning environments and it to be second only to that of the
classroom teacher (Leithwood, & Anderson, 2010; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom,
2004; UNESCO & SPBEA, 2020; Wahlstrom, Louis,; Waters and Cameron, 2007). It appears that the
importance of principal standards lies in their serving as a way for improving school effectiveness
and student performance, and thus the standards for principals plays a key role in consolidating an
education system (UNESCO & SPBEA, 2020). However, many countries currently lack a
standardized set of professional standards for school principals.
In formulating such a set of standards, it will be helpful to review the relevant literature on theory
and practice of principals in the world. Although much can be learned by referring to the existing
Page 2 of 11
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.710.9182 61
Wang, R., & Huang, Y. (2020). Establishing a Set of Professional Standards for Principals in Taiwan. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(10) 60-70.
literature, it will be necessary to take local conditions and contexts into account so as to build a
system of standards suited to Taiwan. A substantial body of the relevant findings shows that
effective leaders understand their impact and that leadership must be contextualized (Linda, 2014).
Recently the context within which school principals work in Taiwan has been characterized by
increasingly complex expectations for school principals and greater demands for accountability.
These changes have resulted in calls for the demands of established professional standards for
school principals (Ingvarson, et al., 2006). The purpose of the present study is to establish a set of
professional standards for principals in Taiwan which takes into account both international trends
and local needs.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this section is to review some of the existing literature on concept of professional
standards for school principals, and as well as the related theories and empirical studies. This
section has three parts: the concept of principal standards; the relevant theoretical considerations;
and a review of the related studies.
The Concept of Principal Standards
Principal standards that describe the nature and scope of principal work and set out the main areas
of practice and provide elaborations on what the standards mean in terms of what school principals
should know and be able to do as defining the professional standards for duties of school principals
(Fedorchuk, 2019; Ingvarson, et al., 2006; Karatas, 2016).It is suggested that the standards of school
principals should be used to (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2015;
Department for Education, 2015; Manna, 2015; National Policy Board for Educational
Administration, 2015; UNESCO and SPBEA, 2020): 1) shape principals’ own practice and
professional development; 2) inform the evaluation and appraisal of school principals; 3) support
the recruitment and appointment of school principals; 4) provide a framework for training school
principals; 5) help schools clarify the knowledge, skills and attitudes all principals are expected to
equip and act; 6) improve the quality and effectiveness of principal leadership; 7) provide a
framework for identifying the professional development needs of principals; 8) inspire public
confidence in school principals; 9) serve as a guiding force for states and leadership preparation
programs as they identify and develop the specific knowledge, skills, dispositions, and other
characteristics required of school principals to achieve real student success in school; 10) define
the scope of the principal’s job, including what principals should know and be able to do.
The Relevant Theoretical Consideration and Practice
According to Clifford, Behrstock-Sherratt, and Fetters (2012), there are two emerging policy
perspectives on principal effectiveness. One is the practice perspective, in which principal
effectiveness is defined by the quality of the practice of principal’s leadership; the other is the impact
perspective, in which principal effectiveness is defined by the principal’s impact on his or her school
(Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). In an important report titled “The Ripple Effect:
A Synthesis of Research on Principal Influence to Inform Performance Evaluation Design,” Clifford,
Behrstock-Sherratt, and Fetters (2012) present a meta-analyses of previous research and propose
a framework for explaining principal effectiveness that comprises the direct and indirect effects of
practices of principal leadership. At the center of the ripple effect is practice of a principal’s
leadership, which is made of his or her knowledge, dispositions, and actions. Research suggests that
practices of a principal’s leadership influence the successful implementation of curriculum that
Page 3 of 11
62
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 9, September-2020
have an influence on school effectiveness and student learning (Wahlstrom, Louis, Leithwood, &
Anderson, 2010). Their findings also support the present widespread interest in establishing
professional standards for school principals so as to improve their leadership as a key to the
successful implementation of large-scale education reform.
The existing literature has shown that professional standards for principal has been established in
a number of countries especially the English speaking countries. In the UK National Standards for
Headteachers are developed corporately by Teacher Training Agency. Hereafter, National College
for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services (NCLSCS) was established (Department for
Education and Skills 2004; National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services,
2010). The USA is a typical country of decentralization of education. However, after ISLLC was
established in the middle of 1990s, it stimulated every state to develop corporately the common
framework of training and professional development of primary school and junior high school
principals (Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium, 2000). The principal standards of the
UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are compared as can be seen from Figure 1 and
Table 1.
Figure 1 The Principals’ Professional Standards among the Five Countries
Page 4 of 11
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.710.9182 63
Wang, R., & Huang, Y. (2020). Establishing a Set of Professional Standards for Principals in Taiwan. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(10) 60-70.
Table 1 A Summary of the Principals’ Professional Standards among the Five Countries
Country Standard Title Standard
Aspect
Mandatory
or not Subject Standard
Structure
Standard
Number
UK
The National Standards of
Excellence for
Headteachers
4 Domains Yes Principal 2- layer 24
USA
The Interstate School
Leaders Licensure
Consortium, ISLLC
leadership Standards
11Indicators No Principal 1-layer 11
Canada
The British Columbia
Principals’& Vice
Principals’ Association,
BCCPAC Standards
4 Domains Yes
Principal
and Vice
Principal
2-layer 9
Australia Australian Professional
Standard for Principals
5 Key
Professional
Practices
NO Principal 2-layer 5
New
Zealand
Professional Standards
for Secondary Principals
4 Areas of
Practice Yes Principal 2-layer 31
A Review of the Relevant Studies
A number of studies directly relating to principal standards can be found in the existing literature
(Fedorchuk, 2019; Glenewinkel, 2011; Karatas, 2016; Militello et al., 2013). First of all, in his study
“Professional Standard of a School Principal: Russian and International Experience,” Fedorchuk
(2019) presents an analysis of the Russian and international practice of implementing professional
standards for the leadership activities of the head of an education organization. This study also takes
the problem of developing principles of structured professional standards and a system for
integrating personnel standards into the system of professional development into account, and
finally proposes a list of professional standards for school principals. In another related study,
“Principal Leadership and Mathematics Achievement: An International Comparative Study,” Shin
and Slater (2010) examine and compare the differences and similarities in the impact of principal
leadership on student mathematics achievement in different regions worldwide using TIMSS
international data.
In another relevant study, “Professional Standards for School Principals in Turkey,” Karatas (2016)
proposes a set of professional standards for school principals in Turkey. The 7-point, Likert-type
questionnaire Professional Standards Scale for School Leaders designed by the researcher was
administered to 328 private school principals in Turkey. The factor analysis of the scale had an
internal consistency coefficient of 0.994 and explained 77.2% of the professional standards of
school leadership. According to the results, Karatas categorized the proficiency areas of school
leaders into (1) knowledge base, (2) effective communication, (3) institution management, (4)
change leadership, (5) technology leadership, (6) educational leadership, (7) school-environment
relations; and (8) life and society. In another related study, “How Professional Standards Guide
Practice for School Principals,” Militello et al. (2013) examine how 61 head teachers in the US state
of North Carolina put prescribed leadership standards into practice. They found that principals set
strikingly different priorities in applying prescribed and codified standards. Also of interest is the
study “How Do Superintendents Use the ISLLC Standards to Evaluate Principals? Or Do They?” in
which Glenewinkel (2011) examines a set of standards for the training of candidates for public
Page 5 of 11
64
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 9, September-2020
school administrative positions formulated in 1996 by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium (ISLLC), a committee formed by the Council of Chief School Officers (CSSO). The
purpose of the study was to determine to what degree school district superintendents in
Washington state use the ISLLC standards to evaluate the performance of principals. In another
noteworthy study, Taipale (2012) discusses a survey commissioned by the Finnish National Board
of Education (FNBE) in 2011 to look at the qualifications and continuing education requirements
for school principals. The aims of the study were to explore school leadership systems and
leadership training practices; to compare the plans relating to qualifications, pre-service training
programs, and on-the-job professional development with those of other countries; and to design
new professional practices and training models for school principals in Finland.
RESEARCH METHOD
The methods employed in this study was fuzzy Delphi. The Delphi method is a knowledge
acquisition technique based on responses provided by a panel of experts (Habibia, Jahantigh, &
Sarafrazi, 2015), and was developed in the late 1950s by the U.S. RAND Corporation to forecast the
impact of technology on warfare (Powell, 2003; Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004). Ambiguity has been a
serious shortcoming of the Delphi method since its inception. Thus Murray, Pipino, & Gigeh (1985)
conducted a pilot study in which the Delphi method was used in conjunction with fuzzy sets, and a
combination of the traditional Delphi method and fuzzy set theory has been developed to address
the ambiguity of the Delphi panel consensus (Ishikawa et al., 1993). Habibia, Jahantigh, & Sarafrazi
(2015) have devised a clear solution for ending the rounds used in the Delphi method. In the present
study a single round of the fuzzy Delphi technique was used.
Based on the review of the existing literature and taking local conditions in Taiwan into account, an
initial set of standards for principals in Taiwan was developed as follows:
Dimension 1. Professional Knowledge
1-1 Policy and leadership knowledge
1-2 Decision making knowledge and capability
1-3 Administration skill
1-4 Public relationship ability
1-5 School context knowledge from local to global
1-6 Political and financial knowledge
1-7 Communication skill
1-8 Interpersonal management
1-9 Social interaction
1-10 Curriculum leadership and instructional leadership
1-11 Planning and leadership
1-12 Practical knowledge of school operation
1-13 Motivating staff
1-14 Organizational management and construction
Dimension 2. Value and Vision
2-1 Educational philosophy and value
2-2 Vision and belief
2-3 Respect and flexibility
Page 6 of 11
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.710.9182 65
Wang, R., & Huang, Y. (2020). Establishing a Set of Professional Standards for Principals in Taiwan. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(10) 60-70.
2-4 School development
2-5 Ethical belief
2-6 Moral behavior
2-7 Professional code
2-8 Personal integrity
2-9 Social models
2-10 Integrative capability
2-11 Innovative ideas
Dimension 3. Professional Attitude
3-1 Positive and optimistic
3-2 Study and innovation
3-3 Leading positive development
3-4 Positive relationships
3-5 Reflection and responsibility
3-6 International links
3-7 Transparency and reliability
3-8 Fare motivating system
3-9 Accountability
3-10 Resource distribution and deployment
3-11 establishing partnerships and cooperation
3-12 Self-improvement
3-13 Supporting professional development
3-14 Promoting educational value
Dimension 4. Professional Behavior and Performance
4-1 Contextual sensibility and judgement
4-2 Negotiation and bargaining
4-3 Implementation capacity
4-4 Empowerment
4-5 Adventure
4-6 Improving student achievement and well-being
4-7 Parental education
4-8 Building an open climate
4-9 Establishing a supporting ethos
4-10 Building a safe, quiet, and orderly school environment
4-11 Encouraging and developing good student behavior
4-12 Distributive leadership
4-13 Facilitating student excellence
These initial standards were modified using the fuzzy Delphi approach, and were revised by a panel
of 20 experts. The initial standards are divided into four dimensions (professional knowledge, value
and vision, professional attitude, and professional behavior and performance) and consist of 52
second-level standards. Based on the findings obtained with fuzzy Delphi, the standards were
revised and confirmed by the panel.
Page 7 of 11
66
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 9, September-2020
Max-min was used to integrate the 20 experts’ opinions. When there is common consensus, the
researcher calculates the Triangular Fuzzy Numbers of importance of the measures. If the first
expert’s evaluation on the importance of k measure is Wij
~
= (aij, bij, cij), ! = 1,2,3, . . . s, fuzzy
weight of t measure will be u>
~
. The calculation is shown below:
u>
~
= (v>, w>, x>), t = 1,2,3, . . . "
, wy> = z∏ wy> |
y
Y ,
(Wj
~
: Fuzzy Weight; !t: the first expert’s evaluation of importance of k measure; n: number of
measures; m: number of experts)
The total effectiveness value of the triangular fuzzy number was set at 0.6, which serves as the
threshold value for evaluating the measures. All the measures were higher than the
threshold value 0.6, indicating that the 52 measures are well suited to serve as professional
standards of principals in Taiwan. Table 2 below present the fuzzy Delphi analysis of the measures.
Table 2 The Results of the Fuzzy Delphi Analysis
No. Indicator item Anti-fuzzy number
(ak (L), Ck (U), total effectiveness values)
1-1 Policy and leadership knowledge (0.797, 0.467, 0.665)
1-2 Decision making knowledge and capability (0.788, 0.455, 0.667)
1-3 Administration skill (0.756, 0.459, 0.649)
1-4 Public relationship ability (0.765, 0.458, 0.654)
1-5 School context knowledge from local to global (0.679, 0.444, 0.618)
1-6 Political and financial knowledge (0.681, 0.452, 0.615)
1-7 Communication skill (0.788, 0.324, 0.732)
1-8 Interpersonal management (0.784, 0.455, 0.664)
1-9 Social interaction (0.705, 0.451, 0.627)
1-10 Curriculum leadership and instructional leadership (0.769, 0.445, 0.662)
1-11 Planning and leadership (0.759, 0.447, 0.656)
1-12 Practical knowledge of school operation (0.764, 0.446, 0.659)
1-13 Motivating staff (0.797, 0.467, 0.665)
1-14 Organizational management and construction (0.714, 0.428, 0.643)
2-1 Educational philosophy and value (0.774, 0.457, 0.659)
2-2 Vision and belief (0.801, 0.467, 0.667)
2-3 Respect and flexibility (0.765, 0.458, 0.654)
2-4 School development (0.689, 0.430, 0.630)
2-5 Ethical belief (0.733, 0.438, 0.643)
2-6 Moral behavior (0.812, 0.452, 0.680)
2-7 Professional code (0.825, 0.463, 0.681)
2-8 Personal integrity (0.816, 0.464, 0.676)
2-9 Social models (0.689, 0.430, 0.630)
{ lk}
l
ak = Min a { lk}
l
k c = Max c
(a = 0.6)
Page 9 of 11
68
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 9, September-2020
and transfer processes impartially; and determining the needs of in-service training. A set of 52
standards for school principals in Taiwan obviously provide an organizing frame for informing
school principals’ training, professional development, and licensing practices.
The standards can lead to professionalization of principals
It is essential to establish professional standards for principals of primary and secondary schools in
Taiwan. However, it does not necessarily mean that it must mandate. The standards can help
describe job missions for principals and to systematically lead the development of their pre service
education and on the job training. And the standards can motivate principals’ ambition and
therefore have a function of benchmarking for principal profession. The findings derived from tis
study have clear implications for professional practice of school principals in Taiwan. In terms of
what is expected of school principals, the professional knowledge (14 standards), value and vision
(11 standards), professional attitude (14 standards), and professional behavior and performance
(13 standards) founded are essential competences and abilities for successful principals in Taiwan.
The establishment of profession standards for school principals will result in improvement of
professionalism of school principals and as a result of this public confidence in school principals can
be enhanced.
The standards can be a useful tool for the recruitment of future school principals and a useful
instrument for the evaluation of current school principals
How can the above professional standards of school principals be used? The standards for
principals are so important, it is suggested that the government of Taiwan should consider adopting
the above principal standards into its educational regulations, as well as using the above standards
to enhance coherence across policies and initiatives targeted at cultivating and supporting
successful principals in Taiwan in the future.
References
Arash Habibia, Farzad Firouzi Jahantigh, and Azam Sarafrazi, (2015). Fuzzy Delphi Technique for Forecasting and
Screening Items. Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management, 5(2), 130–143. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271964020_Fuzzy_Delphi_Technique_for_Forecasting_and_Screening_Ite
ms
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2015). Australian Professional Standard for Principals and
the Leadership Profiles. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy- framework/australian-professional-standard-for-principals.pdf?sfvrsn=c07eff3c_4
BCPVPA Standards Committee (2013). Leadership Standards for Principals and Vice-Principals in British Columbia.
Retrieved from http://www.bcpvpa.bc.ca/downloads/pdf/BCPVPAStandards0913.pdf
Clifford, M., Behrstock-Sherratt, E., and Fetters, J. (2012). The Ripple Effect. A Synthesis of Research on Principal
Influence to Inform Performance Evaluation Design. Retrieved from
https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/1707_The_Ripple_Effect_d8_Online_0.pdf
Department for Education (2015). The National Standards of Excellence for Headteachers. Retrieved from
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/396247/Natio
nal_Standards_of_Excellence_for_Headteachers.pdf
Department for Education and Skills (2004). National Standards for Headteachers. Retrieved from
http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~mujinc/teaching/9-101principal/refer4-2(2004%20national%20standards).pdf
Fedorchuk, Yu (2019). Professional Standard of a School Principal: Russian and International Experience. Advances in
Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 316, 102–106.