This mixed-methods study examined the self-perceived leadership orientation of principals serving Alliance school districts within the state of Connecticut. The Connecticut State Department of Education has classified the 30 lowest performing districts as Alliance school districts. This study expanded the existing body of knowledge pertaining to the Bolman and Deal (2003) multiframe explanation of organizational leaders by applying various leadership frames to identify and effectively respond to organizational situations and by including Alliance school principals in the sample population. The data analysis confirmed that Alliance principals use all four of the Bolman and Deal leadership frames in their decision-making process (i.e., structural, human resource, political, and symbolic). The analysis also found that principals apply reframing as a decision-making strategy as situations evolve. Effective leaders apply one or more of the four leadership frames to determine the best course of action. The 15 interviews conducted for this study revealed that all of the participating principals had experienced the need to make decisions during crisis events such as school evacuations and lockdowns, as well as medical emergencies, and they applied the reframing process. The data also revealed that, contrary to their personal descriptions of themselves, the participating principals are political leaders. Through their descriptions of the manner in which they changed the cultures of their schools or advocated for their schools at the district and community levels, they demonstrated a high level of political acumen. The complexities of the principalship were clearly evident in the data collected for this study. The principals managed challenging crisis situations, during which the school community relied upon them for leadership. Every principal will be called upon to manage a crisis event at some point during his or her career. This study not only confirmed this certainty, but provides recommendations for both aspiring and current administrators as they seek to effectively support all stakeholders through such challenging, and often traumatic, events.

The major purpose of this action research study was to both quantitatively and qualitatively look at novice urban high school principals' perceptions of how their graduate educational leadership programs prepared them to implement the Connecticut Standards for School Leaders as organized into four areas for school improvement: (1) Teaching and Learning, (2) Capacity Building, (3) Community Building, and (4) Policy and Management. To date no studies have demonstrated that following novice principals induction into Connecticut's urban high schools, that these same principals perceive their graduate educational leadership programs prepared them to implement Connecticut State Standards for School Leaders. The sample consisted of nine principals. Two sources of data were obtained. The Educational Leadership Self Inventory (ELSI) Survey was used to collect data via mail and online, and interview was conducted using guided questions. The ELSI specifically addresses the 12 Connecticut Standards for School Leaders (CSDE, 1998). The survey consists of closed-ended questions. The closed-ended questions are rated using a four point Likert Scale with the following anchors: (1) Did not prepare, (2) Limited Preparation, (3) Somewhat Prepared, (4) Well Prepared. The ELSI generated ordinal data. Respondents were asked to review statements relating to what extent do they feel their graduate school leadership program prepared them with respect to the Connecticut Standards for School Leaders by categorizing each statement in accordance with a Likert Scale. Multiple sources of data were analyzed and compared to triangulate findings. Prior to the principal interviews, a pilot interview was utilized to test the interview questions. Conclusions were drawn from findings in each of the four major areas found in the Connecticut Standards for School Leaders. It was concluded that novice urban high school principals are likely to report a wide range of areas in which their preparation programs satisfactorily prepared them or unsatisfactorily prepared them for the principalship. It was recommended that graduate educational leadership programs further their efforts to ensure that candidates are well prepared in areas such as student assessment, teaching, teachers' evaluation, providing opportunity for meaningful collaborative leadership, professional development, active family engagement, harness community resources and developing healthy community partnership to improve learning for all students. They must also make effort to provide high quality internships for candidates.