8/9/2019 40365051

1/10

Instructional Leadership Behaviors in High School Principals, Assistant Principals, andDepartment Chairpersons: A ComparisonAuthor(s): Carolyn S. AndersonSource: The High School Journal, Vol. 70, No. 2 (Dec., 1986 - Jan., 1987), pp. 115-123Published by: University of North Carolina PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40365051

Accessed: 01/07/2010 04:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

High School Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40365051?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40365051?origin=JSTOR-pdf

8/9/2019 40365051

2/10

InstructionaleadershipBehaviorsinHighSchoolPrincipals,Assistant rincipals, ndDepartment hairpersons:A Comparison

Carolyn . AndersonCrete-MoneeIllinois)SchoolDistrict 01-U

1987 The University fNorthCarolina Press

Controversyver heroleoftheprincipalsnotnew.Numerous tudieshave suggestedthat n actualpracticemostprincipals m-phasize the administrativer managerialfunctions fthe ob over those of instruc-tional eadership.n fact, ersonal urvivaland crisismanagement ftendictatehowtime s spentand what functions re per-formed Blumberg nd Greenfield, 980;Howell,1981;Lipham ndHoen,1974;Roeand Drake,1974). On the otherhand,theeffectivechools iteraturetronglyupportsthe mportancefdirect nvolvementftheprincipal n the instructional rogram.nthese schoolstheprincipal s perceived oprovidevisible leadership n creatingndmaintainingnorderlychoolclimate, sys-temforregularlymonitoringtudentper-formance,high expectationsforstudentachievementnd teacherperformance,ndan emphasis nbasic skills.Suchprincipalsare seen as beingtaskoriented, ssumingresponsibilityor nstruction,o-ordinatingthe curriculum,nd actingas a source ofideas andmaterialsEdmonds, 979a andb;Mazzarella, 982; Weber, 971).Evidence romnotherody f iteratureug-gests hat he nvolvementf heprincipalninstructioneednotbethisdirectnorder obe effective.he school mprovementitera-ture, n seekingto identify actorswhichpromoteuccessfulmplementationf nno-vations, rovides vidence hat ndirectrin-cipalsupportf nstruction,ntermsf rain-ing,providing esources, cheduling, ndcommunication,sthe ritical actor.ossert,Dwyer, owan, nd Lee 1982)haveproposedthe onstructf instructional anagement"to ncorporateuchfunctionsLoucks, tal.,1982).Most f his esearch asfocused nelemen-tary chool principals, nd some questionexists as to its applicability o secondaryschools. The view of schools as "looselycoupled"entitiesmay eanimage speciallyappropriateosecondarychools,wherede-partmentalizationnd increased omplexityin staffingatternsreate differentettingfor nstructionaleadership Bidwell,1965;115

8/9/2019 40365051

3/10

TheHighSchoolJournal- ec/Jan. 987Weick,1976; Firestone nd Herriott,982aandb). Insecondarychools he ritical ari-ablemaybe that omeoneon the staffnotnecessarily he principal performs irectinstructionaleadership unctions. latthornand Newberg 1984), in an ethnographicstudy ffour rban uniorhigh chools,forexample, dentified s a veryeffectiven-structionaleader noneschoolthereading/languageartschairperson,nd in anotherschool,the assistantprincipal.Hall, Ruth-erford,nd Griffin1982)reportedhat rin-cipals in successful chools could operatesuccessfullys eithernitiators, anagers,rresponders. he key ingredients erethatsomeone was initiating nstructionalm-provementffortsnd that heprincipalwasprovidinganction.Overallhowever, herehave been fewstudies of roles other hanprincipal,rof heprincipal's ole ntandemwith hat fother chool taffn thedeliveryof nstruction-relatedervices. his dearthfresearch s especially evident at the sec-ondary chool evel.One purpose of the present tudywas todocument ifferencesntheperformancefvarious nstructionaleadership unctionstthehigh chool level. Ofparticularnterestwere hevariationsnfunctionserformedyprincipals,ssistant rincipals,nd depart-ment hairpersons.ased onthetheoryhatsecondarychools re oosely oupled, twasanticipatedhateadershipwouldnotbecen-tralized in the principal role, but rathershared mong he hree oles.Furthermore,twasanticipatedhat chools, venwithinhesame district,would differn the relativecontributionshat achrolemade to nstruc-tional eadership.Methodology:he population or his tudyincludedeightof the nine comprehensivehigh chools na largepublic chooldistrictin the Southwest.Although s partofonedistrict he schools sharedsome commoncharacteristics, heyhad administrativeteams hat aried onsiderablynphilosophyof leadership and in administrativeorganization.The study nstrument as administeredo116

certifiedersonnelworkingn a building tleast40% time.To encourage esponse ndthus an adequate sample size, a self-addressed tamped nvelopewas providedwith ach nstrument,ndtheprincipalwasasked to endorse the studywith an an-nouncement r memoencouragingtaffoparticipate.naddition,he nstrumenttselfcontainedno personal uestionsbywhichteachersmight eidentifiable,uch s teach-ingexperience,ace, ndsex. Teacherswereasked only to identify heir school anddepartment.A revisedversion fthe Sources of nstruc-tionalLeadership SOIL) instrumentGlat-thorn nd Newberg, 983), containing 2leadership unctions, as used to measurethe amount f nstructionaleadership em-onstratedyprincipal,ssistant rincipals,anddepartmenthairpersons,ased on staffperceptions.The original nstrument adgoodfacevaliditynd was assumed o havegood contentvaliditybecause it was de-velopedfrom tenyear eview f he itera-ture on effectivechools.However, o im-provethe measurementcale theresponsecategories ere xpanded ndclarified. herevised response categoriesrangedfrom"does notperformhistaskat all" to "per-forms ask ndplays verymportantole,"with n additional ption f I havenobasisforknowing/'n addition, light hanges nwordingweremade on a few tems or lari-fication,ndone temwasaddedtorepresentan additional actor n effectivenstruction(uninterruptedlasstime).Table 1 includesthe32 items ftherevised nstrument.Reliabilitywas checked withCronbach'sAlphaas a measure f nternalonsistency.For all threeeadership ositions heAlphacoefficient as .95.Studiesofconstructa-liditywere also conducted, nd results fthese nd the eliabilitynalyses rereportedelsewhereAnderson,984).Therevised OIL instrumentasdistributedto facultymailboxes etweenApril27 andMay10,1984. Threehundred urvey ormsoutof 724 distributed erereturnedothe

8/9/2019 40365051

4/10

Instructionaleadership ehaviorsresearch,or n overall esponse ate fover41%. Response tatisticsndicated hat hesampleofrespondents as proportionalbyschool and department)o thetotalpopu-lation urveyed.(1)Articulateshe nstructionaloals f he chool.(2)Helps eacherso relate he chool's nstructionaloals o theirur-

riculumnits.(3)Clarifieshenstructionalesponsibilitiesf achpositionr ole n he

school.(4)Selectsnstructionalersonnelofill acancies n the chool.(5)Evaluateseachers.(6)Develops he chool'smasterchedule.(7) Assignseachersospecificlasses r ections.(8)Allocates aterialseeded o ccomplishhe nstructionaloals f he

school.(9) Helps eacherso evaluatenstructionalaterials.

(10)Helps eachersodevelop ppropriatenstructionalaterialshat renot vailable ommercially.

(11)Seesto t hat ecessaryupport ersonnelaides, ecretaries,tc.) remade vailableo ssist eachersn ccomplishingnstructionaloals.

(12)Communicatesoparentshe mportancefbasic killsnstructionnthe chool.

(13) Organizestaffevelopmentrogramshat elate o nstruction.(14) Analyzes tandardizedchievementest cores o identifyeneral

strengthsndweaknessesn the chool's nstructionalrogram.(15)Schedulesssemblieshat ave n instructionalurpose.(16)Secures dditionalunds or nstructionalurposes.(17)Observeseachersn their lassrooms.(18) Encourageseacherso observeachother's lasses.(19) Communicates o studentsthe school's generalconcern for

achievement.(20)Organizeseachersowork ogethern instructionalatters.(21)Provideselp o teachers howant o mproveheireaching.(22)Approvesewprogramshat ave n nstructionalmphasis.(23)Takes teps o mprovetudentiscipline.(24)Takes teps odevelop school limateonduciveo earning.(25)Co-ordinatesnstructionetween eacherst differentradeevels.(26)Establishesschoolpolicy n studentrades,ncludingailuresnd

promotion.(27)Helps ndividualepartmentso co-ordinateheirurricula.(28)Chiveseacherson-evaluativeeedbackbout heireaching.(29)Suggestslternativenstructionalethodsor tudents ho re on-

sistentlyailing.(30) ives eachers eedbackn theiresson lans.(31)Works ith eacherso mproveheirnstructionalrograms.(32) nsistshatnterruptionsoclass nstructionalime eminimized.Table1: Itemsncludedn theSources f nstructionaleadershipn-strument

Descriptive tatisticsfrequencies,means,and standard eviations)werecomputed nall 32 items f heSOIL instrument.ratingof1.0 means doesnotperform";.0means"performsn unimportantole"; 3.0means"performs somewhatmportantole";4.0means "performs very mportant ole."These itemswere also rankedwithin achrolebysize of meanto indicate herelativeimportancef each functionoeach role.A mixed design ANOVA was run withschoolsas the betweenfactor, olesas thewithin actor,ndmean core or achrole ntheSOIL instruments thedependent ari-able. (Only respondentswho answered tleast17 items or given olewere ncludedin theanalysis.)Mean scoresbyschool foreach roleweregraphed o detectpotentialsources f nteraction.he Scheffemultiplecomparisonestwas used to compare achrole o theother oleswithin achschool, odetermine hich ofthe trends bservednthegraphswere ignificant.Results: olesdifferedubstantiallynmeanscore or ach tem.An temmighte rankedvery igh or ne or wopositionsnd ow fortheothers. ased on theserankingshe tenmost nd least mportantunctionsor achpositionwere identified, s presented nTables2 (most) nd 3 (least).Item Prin APrin DChairpArticulateoals 2.7 2.6 2.6Relate oals oCurriculum 2.7Personnelelection 3.1Teacher valuation 3.3 3.4Master chedule uilding 3.8 2.5Assign eachersoClasses 2.8 3.1AllocateMaterials 3.1EvaluateMaterials 2.6Parentommunication 2.8Analyze est cores 2.8Observe eachers 3.1 3.4Student ommunication 2.6 2.6Organizeeachers 2.5NewPrograms 2.7 2.4Student iscipline 2.5 3.3SchoolClimate 2.8 2.9 2.4Gradingolicy 2.5 2.6Departmento-ordination 2.4Table 2:MeanScoreof heTen Most mportantunctions or achRole(1.0= does notperform;.0 = performserymportantole)

117

8/9/2019 40365051

5/10

TheHighSchoolJournal- ec/Jan. 987Item Prin APrin DChairpPersonnelelection 1.9Teacher valuation 1.7EvaluateMaterials 1.3 1.5DevelopMaterials 1.2 1.4Provideupportersonnel 1.8 1.9Staffevelopment 1.8Analyze est cores 1.7Instructionalssemblies 1.9 1.2Additionalunds 2.0Observe eachers 2.0EncourageeerObservation .5 1.5 1.7HelptoTeachers 1.8Grade evelCo-ordination 1.5 1.9Grading olicy 1.9Nonevaluativeeedback 1.9 2.0AlternativenstructionalMethods 1.6 2.0Lesson lanFeedback 1.5 1.7 1.6WorkWith eachers 1.6 1ATable3: Mean Scoreof heTen Least mportantunctionsor achRole(1.0 = does notperform;.0 = performsery mportantole)

The most mportantunctionsor rincipalstended o betasks nvolvingupervisionndauthorization,uch as evaluation nd per-sonnelhiring. thermportantunctionsn-volved setting he tone of the school andcommunicatinghe chool'sgoals ndvaluestoteachers, arents,nd students. he leastimportantunctions erethose hat nvolvedirect interaction with teachers, en-couragementfpeerobservation,nd the o-ordinationf nstruction.The most mportantunctionsttributedothe ssistant rincipal oleoverlapped hoseof heprincipalnterms f eachervaluationand school climate.However, heassistantprincipalwas seen as playing moremport-ant role n administrativeunctionshat n-fluencenstructionirectly,uch as masterschedulebuilding, ssignmentf eachers oclasses, and studentdiscipline.Direct n-volvementwithteachersand the instruc-tionalprocesswas of owimportanceor heassistant rincipal ole, s for heprincipalrole.Ontheother and, omefunctionsnwhichtheprincipalwas perceived o playan im-portant ole were less importanto the as-sistant rincipal ole.For xample, ersonnelselectionwasranked eryow n mportancefor heassistant rincipal ole, nd thedis-seminationf nformationoparentsndstu-118

dentswas viewedas somewhat ess import-ant thanfor heprincipal.The departmenthairperson as perceivedtohave s themostmportantunctionshosethat nvolve llocating esponsibilitiesper-sonneland materials)nd the transmissionand interpretationf choolgoals.Other opranked unctions ere hose nvolvingirectcontactwith eachersbout nstruction,othtoorganize eachersndto deliver irecter-vices. The least importantunctionswerethosethat nvolvedproviding upport er-sonnel, staff evelopment, r assemblies,probablyecause ccess othe esourceson-trollinghese unctionssusually otgiven odepartmenthairpersons.heyalso playedlittle ole in those nstruction-relatedunc-tionsthat regenerallymandated nd con-trolled yhigherdministrativeevels, uchas feedback n lessonplans,teacher valu-ation, nd standardizedesting.Onlytwo itemswereranked n thetoptenfunctions or ll three oles:establishingpositive chool climate nd articulatinghegoalsofthe school.Likewise nly wofunc-tions were ranked n the bottom en for llthreepositions: encouragingpeer obser-vation ndgiving eedbackn lessonplans.As wouldbe expected ffunctions re dis-tributed mongseveralpositions, n itemgenerally as ranked ighfor nlyone oratbest twoofthe roles studied.Forexample,teacher valuation nd observation nd es-tablishing schoolgrading olicywere m-ong hemostmportantunctionsf heprin-cipal and assistant rincipal, ut mong heleast mportantunctions fthedepartmentchairperson.The principaland assistantsharedmore ommon unctionshaneithersharedwith hedepartmenthairperson.orexample,departmenthairpersonslayoneof theirmost mportantoles in evaluatingmaterials,functionhat srankedmong heleast mportantor heother wopositions.The analysis f meanscoresbyrole acrossitems)demonstratedhatneither rincipal,assistantprincipal,nor departmenthair-personplayedvery mportantoles in in-

8/9/2019 40365051

6/10

Instructionaleadership ehaviorsstructional eadershipfunctions.At bestitemswerebeing erformedt a "somewhat"importantevel,and then nlyfor erynar-rowpersonnelmattersuch as selection ndevaluation.No singleroleperformed orethan our ut f 2 tems t he somewhat" o"very" mportantevel. nfact,n 25out f 2items,no one was seen as performing"somewhat" o "very" mportantole.Thepicturehat merges ere s oneofperceivedlow evels f eadershipcross hree ey olesin these econdarychools.ThemixeddesignANOVAproduced non-significant aineffector chools,buttherewas a significant ifferencemongroles,qualifiedby a significantnteraction.SeeTable4.) According o Figure1,withrolesplotted ithinhegraph,ssistant rincipalsweregenerally erceived s performinghemost mportantoleandprincipalshe eastimportant.Posthoccomparisonsf hemean eadershipscorefor achrolewithin chools dentifiedthosecomparisons hatwere significantlydifferent.ne pattern xhibitedby threeschools 2,4,and6)showed hat heprincipaland departmenthairperson id notdiffersignificantly,utthe ssistant rincipalwassignificantlyigherhan oth heother olesin perceived leadership. In three otherschools 1,3,and8),the hree oleswerenotperceivedo differignificantlyndeliveryf

leadership.chools5and7presentedniquepatterns.n school 7 theprincipal nd as-sistant principal were not significantlydifferentn the mount f eadership emon-strated,but only the principal was sig-nificantlyigherhan hedepartmenthair-person.n school5 thechairpersonolewassignificantlyigher hanboththeprincipalandassistant rincipal oles,which did notdifferignificantly.These patterns uggest hatwhen schoolshavepersonnelwho areperceived s beingweak nstructionaleaders, t eastone otherrolewillbe seen as providingignificantlymore eadership.Why hiswouldoccurwasnot tudiedn this esearch.tmaybe that nallocatinga resource administratorstoschools, n attempts madetobalanceper-sonnel n terms f nstructionaleadershipstrengthswith otherkinds of leadershipneeds. t salsoplausible hatwithin school,whether eliberatelyr not,decisions aremade oallocate eadershipkills mong ev-eralroles.Conclusionsand Discussion: Collectively,theanalyses ftheSOIL instrumentemon-strate learlythat teachersperceive prin-cipals,assistant rincipals,nd departmentchairpersonss performinguite differentinstructionalunctions ithin he schools.Thetrend asfor he ssistant rincipalobeseenas performinghe argest oleoverall ninstructionaleadershipunctions. owever,

Degrees fSourceofVariance SumofSquares Freedom MeanSquare F PBetweenSchools) 10.99 7 1.57 1.65 .122Error 268.03 281 .95WithinRoles) 4.90 2 2.45 11.02

8/9/2019 40365051

7/10

TheHighSchoolJournal- ec/Jan. 9872.60 - Principal2 53 Departmenthairperson/\ - - - AssistantPrincipal250 " 2'48 / \ 2.49I \ 244 /"/46

\ / \ 2-34 / \ 2 35" /\ / 2 31 W"2-34 / \ 2 35" / 233\ // f\1 \ \ V II \ / //;" \ Y A / /5 2.19 \ I ' f \ \ I \ ! \ I I22"2.19': \ I \ \ / \\ / \/ /..fiv-^- V // ./ \ / V /\ 215 / / \y \ / 2.15 /2.io- \ \ / / 2.ii'-z.: \/ /\ \// >^\\ !i \ i.oo- x : \y>-97b rf1.96 l.M

1901 tttfftttff12 3 4 5 6 7 8SCHOOLSFigure : Interaction fRolebySchool forANOVAonSOIL Instrument:olesWithin

it is also clear that highest" s relative: orole was seen as performing orethana"somewhat"mportantole on more hanfew tems, nd thesetendedto be in verynarrowreas uch sstudent iscipline,mas-ter chedulebuilding, ersonnel valuation,and allocatingmaterials.Since schools in this studydid not differsignificantlyntotal eadershipcores,tcanbe concluded hat heywereperceived obesimilar n the total mount f nstructionalleadership elivered.notherwords, egard-lessof hepatternf eadership eliverywhoperforms hichfunctionsnd how import-anttheir ole s),overall bout he ameam-ount of leadership is delivered in eachschool. However, he typeand amountof120

leadership ontributedyeach rolecan beexpected to differ mong schools, evenwithinnedistrict.ome ended obehighnleadership romne ortworoles, nd ow ntheothers, ather hanproducingonsistentlevelsacross all three oles.These patternswould be expected odiffercrossother is-tricts nd schoolsbecause offactorsuchasthe consensus agreement, aily schedule,staffingatterns,nd other actorshat aneffect ole expectations nd set behaviorparameters.ImplicationsorPractice: heseresultsug-gest hat choolsneedto ookmore losely ttheir atternsf eadership elivery,ndin-cludemore f hese unctionsn ob descrip-tions and evaluationmodels so thatper-

8/9/2019 40365051

8/10

Instructionaleadershipehaviorssonnelcan be held accountable orper-forminghem.n fact, hefunctionshatreceivedhehighestatings ere heonesthatraditionallyre ncludedn obdescrip-tions or ach of these oles.A legitimateconclusion ouldseemtobe that dmin-istrators ill performhosefunctionsorwhichnexpectationfperformancexists.Schools lso need oconsiderheir eliveryof dministrativeupportntermsf dmin-istrativeeams n which eaderships asharedesponsibilityothatunctionsan llbe assuredofbeingperformed.he sec-ondary rincipals not een s the ole n-structionaleaderbecause with he com-plexityfsecondarychools, ll thefunc-tions associated with instructionalleadershipannot eperformedoany argeextentyone person. he schoolcouncilstructure,nwhich epartmenthairpersons,assistantrincipals,ndprincipalsork o-operativelys decision-makersn instruc-tionalmatters,s astepn his irection.ucha groupmust ecome elf-consciousboutthe ssignmentf unctionsithinhe roupbecauset sevidentvenn he hreechoolsin histudy,hich ad uch structure,hatstaffsonot erceiveome f hese unctionstobe carriedutby ny f he hree oles.An areaofpracticaloncernhat mergesfromhistudyentersn he wo tems eal-ingwitheachervaluationndobservation.Thepatternf esponseorhe wotems asparallel, uggestinghat eachers quateclassroombservationolelywith eacherevaluation.urthermore,he acthat eacherobservationasnot ystematicallyelatedoany temsnvolvingirectnstructionals-sistanceuggestshat eachers o not seeadministrativessistance s necessitatingclassroombservation,r t east o not eethe wo s related. eacherspparentlyeeevaluation and observationas inter-changeablend s solatedromhe unctionsaddressingnstructionalmprovementi-rectlysuch sworkingith eacherso m-prove heirnstructionalrograms).hesefindingsaiseserious oncernsbout hefeasibilityfusing eacherbservations a

part fan instructionalmprovementro-gramnd he easibilityfncludingnstruc-tionalmprovementomponentsnteacherevaluationrograms.t eems seful or is-trictsoattempto extend heuseofobser-vationseyondormalvaluationystemsnan efforto hangehis imited iew f valu-ation ndobservation.The OIL nstrumentaspotentialor sebya districtr chooln ssessinghe eliveryfinstructionaleadership.neusewould e oprovidenformationbout ow nstructionalleaderships currentlyeingdelivered oteachers,s perceivedy taff.oles anbecomparedithercross tems r with ndi-vidualtemsodetermineho sperceivedoperformhemosteadership.lternately,nitemnalysisfmean coreswould how twhat evel ndbywhom given unctionsbelievedo beperformed.uch datawouldallow school o eallocatessignedutiesoassurehatll functionsould eperformedto an adequate egree. urthermore,incethererenorestrictionsbout ositionsobeincluded,nformationould be gatheredabout he oleplayed ypersonsther hanprincipal,ssistantrincipals,nd depart-menthairpersons.The SOIL nstrumentould lso be usedtodeterminehetherariousonstituentse.g.,teachers, uilding dministrators,oun-selors,pecialists) ithin schooldifferntheirerceptionsf eadershipnthe chool.Fornstance,f nedepartmenterceivesheassistantrincipals nstrumentalnhelpingdepartmentso o-ordinateheirurriculum,itmay ethat he ssistantrincipals nfactdevoting ore ime othat unctionor hisdepartmenthan or thers.uchdifferentialanalysisan hed dditionalightnhow ndforwhomunctionsreperformed,swell sbywhom.Finally,he nstrumentouldbeusedto as-sess owhat xtenthe ituation,steachersperceivet, onformsowhat eachershinkthe dealsituationhouldbe. Sucha usecouldprovidemeasuref eacheratisfac-tionby contrastinghe "real" withthe121

8/9/2019 40365051

9/10

TheHighSchoolJournal- ec/Jan. 987"ideal." In addition hiscomparison ouldsuggestreas nwhich ome hangemightewarranted.ImplicationsFor Research: A major imi-tation fthis tudys itsreliance n schoolswithin nedistrict. lthoughhepatternsfinstructional eadershipthatemerged nthese ight choolswererather iverse,t sexpected hat ther istricts aypresentd-ditional atterns. esearchnother ontextstherefores needed, ncluding mallerdis-tricts,maller chools,non-urban istricts,private chools, ndmiddle chools.Changing hetimeof administration ightalsochange esults. he nstrumentrobablyshouldnotbe administeredooearly ntheyear, eforetaffsave become amiliar iththedeliveryf eadership. n the ther and,toward he end of theyear, taffs ecomebusier nd ess nclined oparticipatensucha survey,rperhaps venmorenegative.Wedo notknow, rom single dministrationfthis urvey, ow reliable heresults re overtime ndwhether tafferceptionsifferc-cordingoanypattern ithinhe choolyearcycle.Futureresearchshould be conducted inschools in which it is possible to gatherenough eacher emographicatatoanalyzeresults y typeofteachers. or nstance, oteacherswithmore xperiencen their ur-rent choolview eadership unctions iffer-ently han eachers ewtothebuilding? oteacherswho are happywiththeir urrentassignmentsold differentiews han each-erswhowant transfer?re here ifferencesbetween the perceptions of departmentchairpersonsnd members ftheirdepart-ments? o administratorsiew heir wnroledifferentlyhan do their eachers? he pre-sent tudy ad tosacrificehiskind fdata norder to protectteacher anonymity ndachieve reasonable esponse ate.Thepresenttudy ttemptedodefine unc-tions utdidnot ttempto nswer uestionsaboutwhy hesefindingsccurred. o do sowouldrequire ither thnographicesearchor work/timenalyses. ndepth tudiesof122

howtime s spentnschools nd of heworkenvironmentnd culture f teacherswouldsuggesteasonswhy omefunctionsre eenas performedoa greaterr esser xtent ycertain oles (Liebermannd Miller,1984;Mintzberg,973;Wolcott, 973).The currenttudy lso didnot nswer ues-tionsabouthow effectivelyhesefunctionswerebeingperformedrto what xtentheyought o be performedya givenrole. t ispossible hat person erformshefunctionto a great xtentplays nimportantole)butdoes an ineffectiveobatit.Whethermanagerialunctionsndtheir er-formanceffecttaffatisfactionithwork sunknownnd couldbe nvestigated.t s alsopossiblethat taffatisfaction ithboth hesource ndamount f eadershipan mediatethe fficacyf eadership. hat s,a principalmay eperformingertainunctionstahighlevel,but f the staffhinks his s an inap-propriateourceoran inappropriateevel ofperformance,he verall ffectn nstructionmaybe negative. everalresearchers avesuggested an "autonomy norm" amongteachers hat eads themto prefer dmin-istratorshorespecthatnd donot nterferein instructional attersGross ndHerriott,1965;Lortie, 975;Willower, 982).Sometrue xperimentalesigns repossibleinansweringausitive uestionswith egardto leadership oles.Forexample, his tudyindicates hat hefunctionserformedtthehighestevel are those that re partoftra-ditionalob descriptionsor ach role. f obdescriptionsnd administrativevaluationprocedureswere modified nd perceivedleadership unctions easuredfter periodof mplementation,videncemight e gath-ered o uggesthat heperceivedmportanceof a functions related o its inclusion nevaluations nd obdescriptions.ReferencesAnderson,C.S. (1984). ''Sources of InstructionalLead-

ership nPublic HighSchools." DoctoralDissertation,University fArizona.Bidwell, C.E. (1965). "The School as a Formal Organ-

8/9/2019 40365051

10/10

Instructionaleadership ehaviorsization." In Handbook ofOrganizations,March,J.G.,ed. Chicago, 111: and McNally.Blumberg,A. and Greenfield,W. (1980). The EffectivePrincipal: Perspectives n School Leadership. Boston,Mass: Allvn and Bacon.Bossert,ST., Dwyer, D.C., Rowan, B., and Lee, G.V.(1982). "The InstructionalManagement Role of thePrincipal." Educational AdministrationQuarterly,18, (3), 34-64.Edmonds,R. (1979a). "Effective chools for heUrbanPoor." Educational Leadership, 37, (1), 15-23.Edmonds, R. (1979b). "Some Schools Workand MoreCan." Social Policv. 9. 32.Firestone, W.A. and Herriott, R.E. (1982a). "Pre-scriptionsforEffective lementary chools Don't FitSecondarySchools." Educational Leadership,40, (3),51-53.Firestone,W.A. and Herriott, .E. (1982b). "Two Imagesof Schools as Organizations:AnExplication and Illus-trativeEmpirical Test." Educational AdministrationQuarterly, 8, (2), 39-59.Glatthorn, .A. and Newberg,N.A. (February 984). "ATeam Approach to InstructionalLeadership." Edu-cational LeadershiD. 41. (5), 60-63.Gross,N. and Herriott, .E. (1965). StaffLeadership inPublic Schools. New York,N.Y.: Wiley.Hall, G.E., Rutherford,W.L. and Griffin, .H. (March1982). "Three Change FacilitatorStyles: Some Indi-cators nd a ProposedFramework," aperPresented ttheAnnual Meetingofthe AmericanEducational Re-searchAssociation,New York,N.Y.Howell,B. (January981). "Profile f hePrincipalship."Educational Leadership, 38, (4), 333-336.Lieberman,A. and Miller, L., eds. (1984). Teachers,TheirWorid, nd TheirWork: mplicationsforSchoolImprovement. lexandria,Va.: Associationfor uper-vision and CurriculumDevelopment.Lipham,J.M. nd Hoeh, J.A. 1974). The Principalship:Foundations and Functions. New York,N.Y.: Harperand Row.Lortie, .C. (1975). Schoolteacher:A Sociological Study.Chicago, 111: niversity fChicago Press.Loucks, S.F., Bauchner, J.E.,Crandall, D.P., Schmidt,W.H. and Eiseman, J.W. 1982). People. Policies, andPractices: Examining the Chain of School Improve-ment,Volume : Setting heStagefor StudyofSchoolImprovement.Andover,Mass: The Network. nc.Mazzarella, I A. (1982). "InstructionalLeadership: Pro-file of an Elementary School Principal." OregonSchool StudyCouncil Bulletin, 26, (3). Bethesda,Md:ERIC DocumentReproductionService, ED 225, 273.Mintzberg,H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work.New YorkN.Y.: Harperand Row.Newberg,N.A. and Glatthorn, .A. (1983). InstructionalLeadership:FourEthnographic tudies onJunior ighSchool Principals. Philadelphia, Pa: UniversityofPennsylvania.Roe, W.H. and Drake, T.L. (1974). The Principalship.New York N.Y.: MacMillan.Weber,G. (1971). Inner-City hildren Can Be TaughttoHead: Four Successful Schools. Occasional Papers,Number ighteen.Washington, .C.: Council for asicEducation.Weick, K.E. (1976). "Educational Organizations asLoosely Coupled Systems." AdministrativeScienceQuarterly, 1,1-19.

Willower, D.J. (1982). "School Organizations: Per-ceptions in Juxtaposition." Educational Admin-istrationQuarterly,18, (31,89-110.Wolcott,H.F. (1973). The Man in thePrincipal's Office.New YorkN.Y.: Holt,Rinehart nd Winston.fflfflfflffi

123