A SCHOO LPRINC IPAL'SLEADERSHIP:VISION TO REALITY
by
Carol Anne Northcott ,B.A..B.Ed.
A thesissubmitted tothe School of GraduateStudiesin partial fulfillment oft~'9 requirementsforthe Degree of Master of Education.
MemorialUniversityofNewf oundland St. John's ,Newfoundland
March,1995
...
National library oICanacla~$i1iOnsand DirectiondesacquiSitions et BIbliographicSeMcesBranch desservices bibliographlQues 395lYelliog1onSlreel 395.M1WeIling«lo
~~Ji~ ~A~QtdaroJ)
The author has granted an irrevocable non--excluslvelicence allowing the National Library 01
Canada to reproduce , loan,
distribute or sell copies 01 his/her thesis by any means and in any form or format, making this thesis available 10Interested persons.The author retainsownership of Ihe copyrlghl in his/herthesis.
Neither the thesis nor substantial extractsfromitmay be printed or otherwise reproduced without his/her permission .
ISBN0-612-01898-9
Canada
L 'auteur a accorde una licence
I::evQcable at non exclusive
permeltant /l ia Blbilotheque nationale du Canada de
reprodulre, preter, distribuer ou
vendre descopies de58 these de quelque manlere at sous quelque forme que ce solt pour mattre des exemplalres decette these a la disposi tion des personnes interessees.L'auteur conserve la proprlata du droll d'auteur qui protege sa these.Nllathesenides extralls substantiels de celle-cl ne dolvent etre trnprlmes ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.
Dedi cati on
This thesisis dedicated to thememory of DoctorAustinHarte,a thoroughand knowledgeable professor,whoseexamplemotivatedmetoselecthimasmy thesissup ervisor.Duringthe process of completingthisthesis he challenged me 10think and writeclearly.At thetime ofhisdealhIconsidered him a trusted fr iend.
Abstract
This study examines how a school principal broughthisleadersh ipvision to realitywithinhisschoor.Some researchers haveviewededucational administrati onas a science ,while omers haveargued ilis a craft.Eachof these perspectives is illustratedin the presenlliterature review of administration, leadership,vision,andeffectiveschools.
This is an ethnographicstudy employing the techniques of participant observation ,unstructuredinterviews,and unobtrusivemeasures.The research was based on the philosophicalassumptionsof naturalisticinquiry withthe accepted ethicalandvalidity considerations.
The study found the research focusto be a schoolleader working to build a vision of offeringa quality service to the school'sstudents. In this work, the school principalworked with and through teachers,students,parents, and communityto bring changes in curriculumand instructionaldevelopment.
professional development,and school culture and climate.The research focus could be considered a transformational leaderfor his work in enabling and empowering others tnrough the change process.An examinationof the research findingsreveals that a school administratoris more effective in leading change it the person operates from a craft perspectiveas opposed to the traditional scientific perspective. The research concluded with the Investigator
offeringimplications for changes to the way administrators aretrainedforthe work of administering socialinstitutions, such as schools.
Acknowledgments
In addition 10the necessary work and lime, the researcher is indebted to Dr.
WilI;-edMartin who readilysupported me when Dr. Harte was studying abroad and who willinglybecame my thesis supervisor after Dr. Harte'suntimely death;
to Dr.Alice Collins, a very special friend,whose provocativediscussions in spired me to undertake the completion of a master's degree program; and to
my husband, David and our children Gregory,Mark, and Andrew,whose patience and understanding over the last four years encouraged me to pursue th e goals I had sel.
Table of Contents
Dedication...
Abstract...
Acknowledgments...
Chapter 1.School Administratio nlleadership ..
Statement ofthe Problem...
. ii
...iii
. v
. 1
. 3
ConceptualFramework 4
Administrat ion:Science-ATraditionalView ... . 5
EducationalAdministrativePractice 8
EducationalAdministration:Craft-A Contemporary View 9
Significan ceof the Study... . 13
Strengthsofthe Case Study... ... . 13
Definition of Terms.c.. . ' 16
Educational Administration 16
leadership 16
Vision 17
EffectiveSchools.. ... 17
Organization of theStudy.... . 17
Chapter2.Reviewof Related Literature...
EducationalAdministration...
Leadership
. 19
. 19
...21
.. .45
. 46
. 48
...25
.. 34
., 42
Effective School,- Vision...
Stmmary.
Chapter 3.Methodology .
PhilosophicalAssumptions .
Ethnogaphic Reeeerch..
Participant Observation....
Interview...
..49 ... ... ...50
UnobtrusiveMeasures 52
EthicalConsiderations... . 52
Validity ..54
TheResearchFocus andSelling 56
Data CollectionTechniques.. . 58
Observation.. . . 59
Interviews... . . 60
Docenenteucn 62
Summary... .. 62
Chapter4.The Work ofa Principal asLeader 66
ThePrincipal 66
TheAward " ..67
TheRecipient.. . 68
The School. 71
Physical Environment.... . .... . 72
OrganizationalStructures andProcesses.. ...85 Curriculumand Instructional Develo pment 104 Professional Development ...
Interactions....
Summary....
....111 ....117
...126 Chapter5.Answeringthe Research Questionsthrough the Research
Findings'" 129
ThePrincipal's Vision.. . 129
Implementing the Vision 133
Curricul um and Instructional Development.... .. 134
Professional Development... ...136
SchoolClimate and Culture. . 139
School- Home - CommunityRelations 143
Stakeholder InvolvementinDecision-making . 145 BarriersinTranslating Vision10ReaHly.. ... 147 Summary.
Chapte r6.The Conclus ions...
. 150
. 154
School Administration :Science versusCraft...
Overview...
Discussion..
....154 ....155
.. 157
--- -GummaryoftheFir:dings... . 162 Application ofResearchtoLeadership VisionasReality.. .. 164
Leaderehip.... . 164
Vision... ....168
Effective Schools.. ....170
Implicationsfor AdministrativeTraining.... . 173
Summary.... . 175
References.. ....178
AppendixA.. . .. 185
AppendixB.. . . . .. 192
Appendix C.. .. 194
Chapter1
SchoolAdministration/Leadership
Educational administration has been the focus of much research in this century. In recent decades,the discussion moved from administrationof educationto leadership withinschools.This focus recognizedleade rship vision as a keycomp onent of thechange needed to make schools more effective.This thesiswillfocus on the notions of educationa ladministration,school administ ration,leadership , vision, and effective schools.
Administration was generally described in terms of activitiessuch as having anddelegatingauthority. communicating,andintegrating and balanc ing components within a system.Itwas often associated withmanagement. The words administration and management were used interchangeablyir:terms of co-ordinatingand integrating people and materialsfor the accomplishment of oiganizationalgoals(Kimbro ugh&Nunnery,1988).In this light,administration, as management,was chiefly concerned with the maintenance ofthings as they were withinthe organization.
Leade rship illuminated a differentdimensionto the activityof overseerng an orga nization. It was often described as a purposeful processin whichpeople were challengedto use thelr creative skills andtale ntswithina threat-free environment,forthe achievementof mutually determined goals and objectives (Roe&Drake,1980).Such a portrait of leadershipindicatedthat it was
complicatedworkfor itinvolvedthe intellect,the emotions,and'hephysicalself.
Itincluded thetotal personwho was requiredto deal withtheabundant and varied desires of the groupwithinthe organization(Wilson, 1966).
In educationalinstitutions, any discussionof administrationand leadership focusedon the schoolprincipal.The princi palwas the chiefexecutiveofficerof the school under whose directionthe"material resourcesare utilized and services of professiona l personnelare appli edto promotelearningamong childrenandyouth"(Knezevich,1969,267).By citingKnezevich andothers, Blumberg andGreenfield (1980)presente dthreedifferentperspectives onthe role of theprincipal.The firstperspective consideredthe schoolprincipalas executive manager whoassistedthework of teachers andpupils through a varietyofservicessuppliedthrough the principal's office. The secondviewpoi nt identified the principal'sworkas an integrationofadministering the school and contributinginstructional leadershiptoteacher's work.Thefinal positionposed the viewtha t the principal'schiefresponsibility was to actas a leaderwho was conceptu ally rooted inthe sciencesof adm inistrationand behaviour.Blumberg and Greenfiel d(1980) furtherproposedthatprincipals were also responsiblefor decision-making,managing conflict,and bringing about changesinthe organizationalstructure of theirschools.
Resea rch by Blumbergand Greenfield (1960),Gilchrist(1969), Louisand Miles (1990),and Fullan (1991) pointed tothefactthat schoolleadershipwas a
key component of effecti ve schools.Murphyand Halling er (1985)supported this researc h white suggest ing that effectiveschoolshad commonfactorsincludi nga clearsenseof purpose,highstandardswithin a variedcurricu lum,a commitment to theeducatio nof each stUdent,a strongsen seof community,and leadership whichpromote d probl em-solving on all levels.Within these schoo ls, the princip alartic ul ateda visionfor the school withsuchcommitmentlhalothers understoodth eimportanceoftheleader's vision andworked togeth ertotake ownershipofthe visio nand bringit to fruition(Lo uis&Miles,1990).Vision was considered theessentialqual ityofthe effectiveschool leader.IIwasbroad but clear;active,ambitiou s,andperformance-orient ed;anditwas directedto a new orderof thingsfor thefuturein theirinstitutions (Blumber g& Greenfield, 1986; Chance&Gra dy,1990;Cunard,1990;Manasse,1986).
StatementofthePro blem
Early inthiscenturythepredom inant researchineducation focused on educa tional administr ation.Sincethe workofChester Barnard on leadershipin busine ss,thefocusmovedtoeducation allead ershipinwhich leadership vision was seen as essentia lfor effect iveschools.Much hasbeen writtenon leadership vis ion ineducati on,whatit was,and what visionary leaderscoulddo within their schools tomakethem moreeffective.Thisthesis examine show a princi pal'slea dershipvisionwas translat ed into practice.Theprincipal's
effectiveness was considereda key factorintheschool'ssuccess.Three broad research questions were asfollows:
1. Whatwas the principal'sleadershipvision?
2.Howwas theprincipal'svisionimplemented inthe schoolthrough;
curriculumand instructio naldevelopment, professiona ldevelopment,
acu lture and climateofstudent excellence, school-horne -communityrelations, stakeholde rinvolvement in decision-making?
3.Whatbarriersimpededthe principa l'sability to translatehisvisionintoreality?
In an endeavourto answer these questions,theresearcher conductedan in- depthstudyofone schoolprincipal.
Conceptual Framework
To begin researchoneducational reader shipit wasimportant to understa ndthatitevolved from educationaladministration ,whichhas been studie dfor mostofth e presentcenturyfrom a scientificperspective (Miller, Madden&Kincheloe,1972; Murphy&Hallinger , 1987).Morerecentworkon educationa ladministration ,however,suggestedthateducationaladministration wasmore appropriatelystudied fromadifferentperspective,that of craft (Blumberg,1984;Greenfield,1975;1980;1986;Hodgkinson,1978).
Administration:sctence.A Traditional View
FrederickTaylorand HenriFayol wereconsidered the forerunnersin the studyofadministration. ForTaylor andFayol the chiefobjectiveof administrationwas efficiency,and standardizationwas themeans ofachieving efficiencywithin theorganization(Mi lleretat.,1972).Time and motionstudies wereconducted. The findings helped developatheo ryofscientificmanagement inwhicheach worker'stechnical skillwas analyzed andthe workofthe organizationwas dividedin accordancewiththe tasksto be completedand the ability ofeach worker.Withinthisschoolofmanage ment thought,the workof administratorsfollowedspecificprincip lesorganized by acronymssuch as POSDCORB:planning , organizing,staffing,directing , co-ordinating, reporting.
and budgeting (Miller etat,1972).
Asthe industrial revolution continued,furtherstudyofmanagementof the workplacedeveloped.The Hawthorne studies foundthat workerswere more productiveif they found someonepaid attention to themas"people"aswell as workers. Mary ParkerFollett, anoted contributor to the workofthisperiod, proposed thatorganizationsshould grantmorehumansatisfactions in the work environment.She held that such satisfactionsadded to individual development as well as to the efficiencyof thework process (Mille r,at aI.,1972). This work ledto ahurnanrelations theory of administr ation.Astrikingfeatureof boththe scientific managemen tand the humanrelations theories was thatthe
administratorwas consideredan expertonthe specific tasks the wor1<ers performed.
Chester Barnard, in divertingfrom thescientificmanagementand human relationsapproaches to administration,recognized that individualswithinan organizationweresubjected toforces outsidethe organizationoverwhichthey hadlillIeorno control(Campbell,R.,1.Fleming,L. Newell &J.Bennion,1987).
Barnard's stuoy of administrationinthe context of the organization'sinteraction with the environmentledtoanew anddifferenttheory of administrationknown as behavioralscience.Consequently,the organizationwas describedby Barnardasa consciouslyco-ordinatedsystem of humaneffort.
The administrator,in suchan organization,was an expert onthe total organization rather than being an expertonthe tasksperformed by workersas proposed by scientificmanagementtheorists or "as an expert ontherelationof the work environmentand theworkers'psy::hological slate,as in thehuman relations school"(Miller et al.,1972).Withinthe organization,Barnard sawthe workeras one who semoti....atlonto workwas the resultofcomplexfactors such as personalsatisfact ion, materialreward,and the stateofthephysical environment. He maintainedthat such humangoalscould be achieved asthe organizationwent about its business of achievingitsgoals.The administrator's work wasto maintaina balancebetween individualandorganizationalgoals (Miller
er
al.,1972).litchfie ld (1956 ) expressedtheview that althoughtheoriesof admin istrationwer e evidentand that scient ifICresearchwasbeingconducted relatedto these theories,theresearchworkwas fragmentedin terms of administrationof businessand administrationof public organizations.He suggested that admin istrative theorybelooked at asa wholewith the pl'oposition thatthe adm inistrat iveprocesswas acycle ofactionwhichincluded the specificactivitiesof decision-makin g,programming,communicating, contro llin g,and reappr ai sing (litchfield,1956).Within litchfi eld's workit was understoodthat deci sion-maki ng was critical thro ughthe cycle and that decisionswere tobemade in a rationalmanner.Litch fiel dwa s supported by the workof Simon (1945) who considered thatthe best knowled geof administrative realitiesshould come fromscien tificmethodsofresearch andbecalleda scienceofadmin istration.Simon'smain recommendationwas thata"gener al theoryof al'min istrat ionmustinclude prindplesof organization thatwil!insure correct dedsion-making,just asitmustinclude principles thatwillensure effectiveaction" (Simon,1945,1).ForSimon,thecore of the administrative functionwastomakedecisions.He considered that on ly thefacts mustbe presente din any administrati vedecision. Althoughhe recognizedthatdeci sion s were made byhumans, oftenabout humans,he proposed the scientificapproach todecision-makingsinceitwa s dovoidofvalue orethica lcon siderations (Greenfield,1986;Simon,1945).Simon'snotion ofral ionaldecision-m aking
markeda decline in thestudy of administrationthrough the experience, observation, and reflectionsof people,like ChesterBarnard, whowere not scientistsbut administrators.Simon'sworkwasthe most significantin buildinga theoryof administrationbased on scientific knowledge,knowledgethatderived fromfacts and ignored the valueand sentimentwhichcame fromhumanaction.
EducationalAdmini strat ivePractice
The evolutionof educationaladministrationwas matched verycloselywith thethree theoriesdiscussedin the previoussection.Before the industrial revolution of the late nineteenth century,schooladministratorswereappointed inlargercentreswith virtuallylittleorno training.Taylor's scientificmanagement theory andtheincreased efficiency in businessorganizations,at a time when educationwas sufferingfrom pooradministratortraining, tittle money,and overcrowdedschools,led two successfuladministratorsto proposethat the American education systemfollowthe stridesmade in business.Frank Spauldingand George Strayer,writing in theearly twentieth century, proposed that theprinciplesof simpleandsound business be applied tothe educational setting.The applicationof scientific principlesenabledtheadministrationof schoolstobequantifiedin terms of /Qscores,achievement scores or through dollaramounts.Universities could now Irainpeople as educational administrators,followingthe modelespousedby scientifictheorists. Educational
administrationbecame recognized as a science of controll ingteachers (Murphy
&Hallinger,1987).
The adventof the Great Depressionand the onslaughtof World WarIt saw a declineinthe adoptionofthe businessmodelin educationas educational administratorswere forcedtoconsider economicand socialissues. Despitethe fact that therise of social consciencepermeatedtheuniversityeducationof administrators ,muchof their study continued to concentrateon budgeting, scheduling,and managementof the school plantfollowingthetheory of efficiencydeveloped by Taylor.Thework ofSimonentered the studyof educationaladministrationinIhelate1950's and 1960's. The emphasis in universitystudyfor educationaladministratorsfocusedonthe behavioural sciencesWItha recognitionthat suchadministratorscou ldbe trainedon the basis of empiricalresearchasit relatedto theconcepts andtheories ofhuman behaviour,statisticalana lysis,and research designs (Murp hy& Hallinger,1987).
Education alAdministration:Craft - A Contemporary View
In1974Thomas Greenfield presented revolutionaryideasontheway to look at the studyof administrationgenerally and educationaladministrationmore particularly.Histhinking focused on adminis trationas a craft.The word craftis described as follows:
Craftalwaysinvolves
a
distinctionbetweenmeans andend, each clearlyconceivedassomethingdistinctfromthe otherbutrefated to it.Inacraft the endisthoughtout first,and afterwardsthe meansarethought out. The arlist must haveacertain specialized formof skill,which is calledtechnique. He acquireshisskiffjustas a craftsman does,partlythroughhis experience and partly' l,trough sharinginthe experienceof others who thus becomehisteachers.
The technicalskill whichhethus acquires does not by itself make him an artist, foratechnicianis made,but an artistisborn (Blumberg,1984,31).
To look at administra tion,more particularlyeducationaladministration, fromthe craftperspectivere quired a newlook at organizationsand the people who administe redthem.Th e positivisticor scientificapproachto administration, discussed in thetrad itiona l view,re cognized organizationsas entitie sseparate from humans thai workedinthem.There was areco gnitionthai organizations existed withgoats10 achieve as they respondedand adaptedto the Internaland externalenvironmen t(Greenfield,1975).A contemporarytheoryof administrativestudyproposedthat organizationswereestab li shed bypeople andthuspeople were accountablefor what went onin them(Greenf ield,1980).
Consequen tly,organizatio nsbecamereal through the actionsof humansor were
"aninvented social reality of humancreatio n"(Greenfietd,1986,71).Peopling organizations brough t values, will ,commitment,intentions,andpotentialto changeanddirectthem.Thismeant administratorswereessentially value- carriersinorganizations;they wereboth arbitersofvalues an d repre sentatives ofthem (Greenfie ld,1986).In Greenfield'sview,it wasimpo rtantthata science of administra tion recognizethe complexitieswhich came withvaluesand
10
broaden its conceptionso thatthescientistwas consideredanobserver andan interpreterofreality(Greenfiel d,1986,60).He maintainedthat humaninterest andits possible biaseswerecomplexlyinterwovenin what wasknovmas scientifi ctruth(Greenfield.1986).Thisperspective acknowledgedthat thestudy ofadminisrraton,more particularly educational adminiSlr6lion,beguidedby interpretivesciencewhich"recog nizes bothsubjectivity in the ccnstnctionof social realityand the inevitabilityof interpretationin science"
(Greenfi eld,1986,74).
Withinthisparadigm,thestudyof administration shifted fromthe useof the naturalsciences tothesocialscience s where phenomenologicalapproaches were employed.Training of peopleinterestedinadmillist~ringorganizations.
especiallyeducationalorganizations,focused ongiving''them deeperinsights into thenatureoftheirCfaft - intothedilemmasandpossibilitie:i- throughs~udV ofrealitiesandthroughreflectionuponthem"(Greenfield,1986,74).Such an approa chrecognized that"administrativetrainingistraining for life andthai only thosewhohave some insig htintolife-itsironies, joys,and tragedies-are fitto beadministrators"(Greenfield,1980,48).
SupportforGreenfiel d'sthinking onthe study ofadministrationcamefrom ChristopherHodgkinson(1978).Hodgki nsonmaintained that although admini stration was arationalbusiness,theserationalborderswe reheavily
surroundedduetothe potenthum an characterof suchactivity.Theprop o sition put forward wasthat:
Administrationcan be construe das philosophy inaction;'thatwe arealleitheradministere d or administe ring;that organiza tionsare purposive collec tivities; tha t manfinds alarg e part ofhislife- meaning in organization s;thatadministratio nis a moralactivit)';
and that poweris thecen traltermof administrative discour se (Hodgkinson,1978,99).
Therewas anadmission thatce crsrcn-m eun c was a primeadm inistra tive activity but such actionsuggestedphilosophicalskills whichwere rooted inhumanism (Hodgkinson. 19 78).
The ideaof administ rat io nas craft impliedamixtureof"socialdiagnostic andbeh avioral skillsthrough whichtheadministra torsomehowseeksto main ta inboththesystem's balanceandits goal orientation" (Blumberg,1984.
32) insuch awaythatothers,whoobservedthis personat work,consideredhim amast er.From thisperspectiv e,educationaladministrato rshad avisionof what a schoolough t to be;they wereclearaboutand orientedtowardtheirgoal;they weresecurein themselves;they had ahigh tolera ncefor ambiguity; they lended tote stlimits;they were sensitiveto the dynamics ofpow er;and theyapproache d problemsintu itively,from ananalytical perspective (Blumberg&Greenfi eld, 1980).These characteristics were acquir ed throug h a wealthof lifeexperiences.
Theybrought thesetothe admi nistr ativetraini ng ground andreturnedto adm inistrativ e position sastho s esame sel veskno wingsome newthings
12
(Blumberg,1984).Suchadministrato rsarethe focus ofre searchineducational institution s.
Significance of theStudy
The stUdy of adminis tratio n,more particularlyeducationalad ministration, hasbeen ofa scientificnature as proposed byHerbert Simon.Sincethe early 1960'sthere has been constructivistworkdone on the concept of the effec tive school.Severalresearchers,nam elyFullan(1991),Louis and Mile s(1990 ).and Sergiovanni(1990),have written much ontheidea of leadershipandvision in schools workingto become effective.Otherresearchers,includingBlumberg and Greenfield(1980), Cunard(1990)andEdmonds(1979),slate dwhat administratorsas effectiveleadershad to do to createmore effectiveschools Thisresearcher,working withina constructivistparadigm,observed such a princip alto explorewhat he didinbringinghis visionofan effectiveschoolto reality withintheeducationalsetti ng. Put differe ntly,this is a studyof school leadershi p.
Strengthsof the CaseStudy
Traditiona lresearchfocuse d on finding truth through propo sitional statements,thosewhichdevelopfrom reasoning(Stake,1978).Such studies concen trated on hypotheses, controlledvariables,largerandom selectionsfrom populations,statistical analysesofdalacollecte d,andgeneralizati ons of results.
Such studiesoperated withi nthenaturaland socialsciences.Thiswasdue to the fad that socialscientistssawthesocial world as physicalscientistssawthe naturalworld·there werelawM regularitiesbetweenthecauses andeffectsof eventsor happenings (Donmoyer,1990;Stake.1978).The problemwas thai with inthesocial sciences,with theapplied fields of education,socia lwork.and counselling.therewere manycomp lexities relating tohumanbehaviour.Such complexitiesled researcher s likeCronbach.citedbyDonmoyer(1990).to conclude thathuman actionwasconstructed,notcaused,andthustraditiona l ways of studyingitwere inappropria te.The complexi ty problem also implied
"thatitno longermakes senseto thinkofgeneraliz ability as synony mouswith theuseoflarge samples andstatisticalprocedures designedto ensurethatthe large samplesaccurately representthepopulation"(Donmoyer,1990,161).
Stake (1976)contend ed thattruthinthecourse of human aff airswas better approachedthrough statementsrichwitha sense of human encounter.
Suchstatementsdevelopedfromanimmersionin the human experienceand a
holi~>Iiclookatthephenomena beingstudied.Thisled one toexamineonly
pa rucna rsfromwhichitwas accepted that generalizationscould notbemade.
The proposalwasthatlhesepartic ularexperience s ledtonaturalisti c generalizations-those "arrivedat byrecognizingthe similar itiesof object s and issuesin and outofcontext and by sensingthe natural covar ialionsof happenings" (Sl ake,1978,6).Thesegeneralizati ons,which guidedhuman
14
action,formedwithinpeopleas a result of experiencesdeveloping from tac it knowledge,As otherpeopleread cases of hu manexperiencetheyfound similaritiesthat int erested themandthus formedthebasis fornaturalistic gene ralizations. An acceptan ce ofsuc hgeneralizabilityledto the importanceof the case stu dyas a wayof describing part icu lar experiences of humans.The case studydidthis through:
Descriptionsthat are complex,holistic,andin volving a myriadof nothighly isolatedvariables;datathatarelikel y to be gathered at least partly by personalis ticobservation;and a writingstyle that is informal, pe rhapsnarrative,possiblywith verbatimquotation, illus tration,and evenallusion and metaphor. Compar isonsare implicitrather than explicit.Themes andhypo thesesmay be important,buttheyremain subordinateto the understandingof the case(Stake,1978,.6).
Therewere advantagesto the case study approachto understa nd ing human beh aviourof theadministrat oras a leaderin a schoolstrivingfor excellence. The case study enabled pe ople to,personally and vicariously ,learn abou tsituationsand culture s they otherwisewould not know,Case stu dies enable dpeopleto seethe worldbeing studie dthroughthe eyes oftheper son doin g theresearch.This broughtthe hope thatjheresearche r hada "rich rep ertoire of schemata"(Don moyer,1990, 195)forviewing particular events.
Vicar iousl ythose whoread th is rese arch addedto theschemata.Also the case studyapproachtoresearch decreased defensiveness. Those whovicariously learned fr omthe case studywerele s s likelytoresist learning(Donmoyer,199 0).
In fact,the case study approach to socialresearch"has beentriedand found to bea directand satisfyingwayof addingtoexperienceand improving undsrs tanding " (Stake,1978, 7).
Definitionof Terms
Thetermsrequirinq specialconsid eratio nin thisstudywere educational administra tion,leadersh ip,vision, and effectiveschools.
Educational Arl minls tr atl on
Educationaladministrationhas beendefined as"t heactiv ity that concems itselfwiththesurvivalandmaintenance of an organizationandwith the direction oftheactivitiesofpeopleworking withinthe organir ' :onin their reciprocal relation s to the endthai theorganization's purposes may be attained" (Wilson, 1966,29).
Leade r shi p
leadership,inthepresentS~Udy,is "that behaviour of anindividual which initiates a new structureininteractionwithina social system;it initiates change in the goals,objectives,configurations,procedures,inputs, processes,and ultimatelythe outputs of social systems"(Lipham & Hoch,1974,162).
16
Vision
Visionis seen as the abilityto operate with moral ima ginationQ(seeth at the world didnot have10sta yas it was:that the possibilityexisted forit10be better (Blum berg &Green field,1986 1.
Effect iv eSchools
Effect ive schoo lsaredefinedas school swhichpayspecialattentionto student achievement,student expectations,studentattendance,delinquency, general behaviour,and altitudes of students.Such an emp hasisleadsto a descriptionof effecti ve school s as those in which student achievementand develop mentofcharacter areimportantaccor dingtoasynthesisofthe resea rch oneffectiveschoolsbyDown er(1991).
Organizationof theStudy
The stud y deal swithanin-d epthexaminationofaprincipalina school.
Chapter1of thestudy intro duce sthereader tothere search probl em,the conceptualframework fromwhichthe researcher views theproblemor issue,the significanc eoftheresearch,andthedefinition ofterms usedin therese arch.
Chapter2 focuseson a reviewof the liter atu re con sideredrelevantto such a re search study.The literaturehighlights educational administration,leade rshi p inthe schoolsetting,visionofthe school leader,andeffecti ve school s.Th e researcherworkedwithin theconstructivistparadicm through the use of the case
study approa ch to view ingthe work of a principalina schoolstrivingto be effectivein educating children.The explanationof thisresearch methodologyis presentedinChaptsr3.The case study approach brings forward a wealth of datain aninformal and narrativemanner. This data is outlined in Chapter4.
Chapter5examines the researchfindings intight of theresearch questio ns.This isfoilowedby Chapter6 whichincludes an overview of the conceptual framework anddiscussion asitrelated totheresearch SUbject;a summary ofthe findings;a discussion of the reviewed literatur e as itrelated to the work of the principal studie d;and implication sforadministrative training.
18
Chapter 2
Reviewof Related Literatu re
Inord er 10 study any contextifis importan tfor the researcherto spend lime researchingrelatedwork onthe assignedtopic. Suchreadingoffers background lntcrmaticn and sets a framework forthe particularresearch.It is presentedas a reviewof theliterature related to the research topic. This chapterbeginswith aliterature review of administration and leadership.
Researchindicates the distinction between the concepts of administrationand leadership.This isfoll owed by a study of research on the principal,as the leadership position of a school. The researcherthen examinesvision as a distinctivequality of a leaderand visionas a shared processwithin the educational setting.The chapter concludes with an examinationof the role of the principalin a school stri vingto be effectivein the educatio nof students.
EducationalAdministration
Adminlsfrationhas been a partof society sinc ehumans organized themselves for the achievement ofspec ifiedgoals.Th e formal study of administra tion,how ever,was amorere cent exercise,datingback to the nineteenthcentury.Research and examinationof educational administration,in particu lar, were twentiethcentury phenomenacoincidingwith the establishment
of large city schools and the extension of schooling heralded by the industrial revolution.
Administration was seen as a~socialprocessconcerned with creating, maintaininr,,',stimulating,controlfingand unifyingformally and informally organizedhuman and material energieswithina unified system designed
to
accompt;shpredeterminedobjectives"(Knezevich, 1969,11).Itwasoften equated with management and both words were used interchangeably in books.They were defined essentially in terms of co-ordinating and integrating people and materials for the accomplishment of organizationalgoals (Kimbrough &
Nunnery, 1988).
Educational administrationwas also defined in terms of "communiC<3ting, bearing and delegating authority and responsibility,integrating and balancing, signal-callingor ordering, and energizingand stimulating" (Mil ler etal.,1972, 395).Recognizing educational administration as defined above connoted the specific tasks of managing 1) instruction and curriculum,2) services related to student personnel, 3) relations between lhe school and the community,4) services related to staff personnel,5) the physical plant, 6) transportation, 7)public accountability,and 8) the financial and business dimension of the organization(Kim~rough& Nunnery,1988).
A study of these administrativetasks led one to accept that educational administrationinvolved,for the most part, maintaining things as they were as its
20
chief purpose.Itwas based onthe assumption thatif thingswere kept running smoothly then the organizat ionwould achieve the goals it was establishe dto accomplish(Blumberg& Greenf ield,1980). Suchan ana lysis described educationaladministrationas maintainingthe statusquo.
Leadership
Tofullyunderstand leade rshipitwasnecessarytodistinguish between leadershipand management.Meredith (1985),in a synthesisof the literat ureon leadership,statedthat manager s forcedfollowers to complywithwhat they,the manag ers,consideredimportant. This was donethrough a systemofrew ards or punishments.Lea ders , on the contrary,had a visionwhichtheyshared with
"followers"who had the free willtofollow or notto follow. Such a relatio nship wasbased ontrust.There was a contention that"leade rshipis'makinga difference'; man agement is mainta ining things as they are"(Newberry, 1987, 26).
Fullan (199 1) and Louisand Miles (1990)offereda comprehensive distinctionbetw eenlead ershipandadmi nistration.Leadersestablished the course for an organization;managers ensu redthecoursewasfollowed.
Leaders developedstrategicplans;managerschartedoperationalsystems for carryingouttheplans.Leaders enccuraqedandmotivated;managers used theirinterperson al controltc translatethat energyinto productive work.Thus theworkof theleaderwasassocia tedwithmission, direction, andinspir ation.
Managementin volved conceiving and carrying out plans, getting things done, and working effectively with people.Within an organization both management andleadership were important. Leadership,however,was pre-eminent.
Jacobsen(1980 ) indicatedthat leadershipwas using the communication process toinfluence people so they too strived willingly for organizational objectives .Walkins (1986)quoted Selznicx and Goldburg in dofining leadership.II was seen as the assumptionof accountabili tyfor the pursuit of excellence in organizationallife.1\was anart,no! ascience, which meant it was mainlyintuitive. Leadership was also defined as "inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the valuesand motivations - the wants and needs, the aspirationsand expectations -of both leadersandfollowers"(Burns,1979, 381).Leadership presupposed havingboth emotional and spiritual resources 10 inspire followers in a way that made them feel that the thingsthey were doing withinthe organization were worthwhile and significant. Followers were empowered,energized,and committed to a visionfor the institution(Bennis&
Nanus,1985).
A synthesis of these definitions indicated that effective leadership was not a thing but a relationship based on trust in which the followers became committed 10Ihe goats of the organization through sharing leadership with the leader.Thus, the leader became a follower and the followers had the opportunity to becomeleaders (Lee, 1991).
22
Research byBenn isandNanu s (1985),Blue (1989 ),Fullan(1991),Louis and Miles(1990) ,Roueche,BakerandRose(1989), and Sergio vanni (1990) indica tedthatvisionwas animportant character istic of effective leader ship.
Visionof theleader,shared with the followerssuch that avariety of goals and objectiveswere broughttogetherin a common vision,createdan environment in which changecouldoccur andtheinstitutioncould move toward sthe achievemen tof excellence.
Research by Blumbe rgand Greenfield(19 80),Edmonds (1979 ), and Ruiter,Maughan,Mortimoreand Ouston(1979 ) demonstratedthai student achievementwa srelated to particularschoolfactors,one of which was the involvementof thesch oolbasedleader, principal. inthe organization's curriculumand instruction.Instructional leadershipwa s needed.Thus the effectiveschoolprincipa l,in an effort to bring aboutgreatness for theinstitution, embarked on endeavourswhic hsaw him emphasizesupervisionand evaluation of personnelandstudents,an dinvolv ed selfin instruction andstaff development (Walker,1993 ).Leilhw ood (1992)refersto changesbroughtaboutthrough jnstruc ttoneljea dershfc as firstorderchanges since the instruct ionalleader focused attention on enhancingthetechnical,instruction al activitiesofthe schoolthroughclosemonitoringof classroom work.
Thele ader sh ip paradig mbased onthe assumptionof sharedvision focusin gonthe instructional leadershipofthe school-based administratorwas
what workedweUfor some educationalinstitutions in the 1980's.However,it was maintainedthate "convergenceof severallines ofresearch-on shared decision-making,teacher empowermentandschool reform - has causedusto rethinkour leade rship paradigm" (Walker,1993,34). Such research was respondingto changesin societyin whichpeople wanted autonomy, choice, and controlovertheir lives and their working envi ronmen t(Alkire,1993).
Anew kindofleadership was neededtorespondto the refonn taking place insociety, ingenera l,andwithinthe educationalselting,inparticular.It was leadershipwhich workedat releasing thepotentialof othersso theywere committed to action. Thistypeofleadership caused theleaderstobecome agents of change(Ellis&Joslin,1990).Such leaders:
willneed tobevisionaries, collaborators,and facilitators as wellas managers,administratorsand decision-makers.They will needto learn tobe probtem-aolvereandconsensus-buil dersandbeable to motivateandstimulat etheir prcfeselonal collea guestowardgroup goals(Stine,1993,9).
Thisleadershipwas sometimesreferredto asIransformationalleadership.
To develop the shared vision,commitment,enabling,and empowering within anorga nization,the transformational leaderstudiedthe cultu reofthe institution.The traditionsofthe school werebroughttotheforefront and a new emphasiswas placedon the ritualswhich affirmedth e importa nceand significanceof sharedvalues(Sergiovanni, 1990). Suchleadership diverged frominsttuclionalleadership,whichfocusedon the firstorderchangesrelatedto
24
tasks and the performanceof them(M itchell &Tucker.1992),byplacing emphasis on second orderchanges which centredon changing attitudes and beliefs.The instruetional leadercould and often was a transformalionalleader (Leithwood,1992).
Vi sion
The reform of educationat alllevels, begunin the 1980's, continued and spreadin the 1990's.Much ofthe literatureonreformfocused on visionas a key component to change.The visiondiscusser. in the early1980's,as afactor in school reform,was seen to derive its sourcefrom the Instltutionatleader.
Further study of this vitalcomponent of change centred on shared vision and thus emerged vision building.
There were severalapproaches to the concepts ofvision, where it originated,and how it was brought to fruition.One approach recognized the importance of the leader in having anddeveloping a visionfor the school. A second viewposited thatvision was built from the process of sharingvalues, withtheleader playing a key role inhelpingthe organizationalmembers articulate and formthe sharedvision.
In a word,visionwas described as a "force",a "dream", an "image",a
"blueprint" ,a "gift"and a"purposing" (Bennis&Nanus,1985;Chance & Grady, 1990;Moore,1989;Senge,19 90;Sergiovanni,1990).One definition developing from these descriptors of vision,distinguisheditasthe forceor dream toward
whicheffectiveadministrato rsstrivedinshapingthe irschools for success (Chance &Grad~',1990). vetanotherdefinitionconsideredvisionas that successivestreamof actionsinitiated by the organization's leader which hadthe effect ofinducingclarity,consensus,andcommitmentwithrespectto the organization'sbasic purposes (Sergiovanni,1990).Louis and Miles(1990),in citingBlock, considere dvisionas the deepest expressionof what aleader, in working with follow ers,wantedforanorganizatio n.Itwas a blueprint of a desired future.All these descriptionssharethe senseth at vision waswhat droveindividualstoward a futureand,hopefully,betterconditionfor ail.
Beckner (1990)statedthatvisionwas a specialcharacteristic of the organization'sleader.It was the drivingforcethat inspired and guidedboththe leader andfollowers. Mason (1991)maintainedthatthe positivevisionof an effectiveleader wasa vita lfactor inadultlearning,whichcould be transla tedto alllearning institutions.Themost compelling statementlorvisionary leadership came fromManasse (1986)whoassertedthat the essentia lqua lityof leaders was vision.These researchersbasedtheirIheses on thefact that itwas the leader who could"lead" th e organization tonew anddifferen tthingsand they consideredtheleader as theprinc ipalin the echccl. Manasse, inher work on the topic,basicallysummarizedthe workofotherresearch ers who attested that visionaryleadership,whichled to schoolreform,was found in'he schoolleader,
26
theprincipal. Shedistinguishedbetweenfourtypes of vision:organizational vision, futurevision,personal visionand strategic vision(Manassa,1986).
Forthe school principal, organizationalvision came from close examination of thepresent situationin the school.Suchvisionenabled the leadertohelp othersunderstandthat changesin any areaof thesystem hadan effect onall parts of the organization.Thi srequired theleaderto be a constant learner-learningfrom othersandfrom initiativeswhichbecame partof the organization's reform.The futurevision of which Manasse spoke,was drawn fromthe leader's per sonalbeliefs andorganizationalvisions.It was an extensivepicture of howthe school wouldlookat some pointinthe future.For theschool, thisincluded how it wouldbepositioned initsenvironmentandas weI( as howitwould function internally.Theleader's futurevision ofwhatthe schoolcouldbecomewas conveyed throughsymbols,persuasion,and interper sonal competence~the characteristics of theleader withpersonalvision.
Personalvisionderivedfrom theleader'sreflect ion on personaland professionalvalues. It was thesevalues thatenabled the leaderto articulatehis personalresources and positionhimself sothat his strengthscameto the forefront.Suchaperson sawthepositivein situations andspenta greatdeal of time using symbols to portray his visionthroughoutthe institution.
Tobring about the futurevisionthe leader had tohave strategicvision- the vision whichunited thereality of thepresent situationwithin the school tothe
possibilitie sof the future,Thisrequiredthepatience toworkthrough the muddy work of bringingat:out thedesiredfuture thro ugh the day-to-day workingwithin theinstitution.Chanceand Grady(1990)assertedthatthe visionary leader solicitedthe resourcesofIhe staff in the changeprocess.The stakehOlders fell that theywerepart of the implementation- this was thework ofstrategic visioning.Dant/ey (1989) supportedthe workofManassain statingIhatlhree factors or piecesplayed a partin formingthe leader'svision:the leader's socialization process,his educationalphilosophy,andthe present realities and futuredreams.
Chance (199 1),ChanceandGrady (1990),and~ogus(1990) contended that althoughthepersonal visionofthe leaderwasvital,thisvisionhadto be sharedwiththe staff,particula rly, andtoall stakeho lders,generally.This requiredtheleader to speak of his visionatevery opportunityandtaketime to let othersrespondto it. Such speech andresponse led tothe development of a mission orvision statement fortheinstitution.IIwas the future 10 whichall were committed.The consensusfrom thisgroup ofresearchers wasthatthe vision came from theleader,who wastheprincipal,and thatit wasimportantto share this visionwithallstakeholdersthroughcommittee or consensus.They also supportedthe view that thevision,writtenas avision statement,precededany realchange inthe organization-this wasthe starting pointforreform.
2.
Ellis andJoslin (1990) presenteda differentnotionofvision - shared vision.They concurred withtheview thatvision wascriticalto changein the school.How ever,they contendedthatdeveloping avision from theleader was creatinga future based on the idealsofthe charismatic leader.Thefollowers were nottruly committed tothe vision but to the personwhoespousedthe vision.
Thusthechange process often falteredwhentheleader lefttheinstitution.For theseresearchers,anewconception ofleadership developed. Thisrecognized the complex ity and diversity inlearning instituti ons anditreleased the potential of all followe rsinthe pursuit ofshared goals.Vision wasseen as aset of ideas which weresociallyshared.It describedwhatwas the desiredstalefor continuanceanddevelopment0: results within theschool. This vision was created overalong timeand possibly nevercompletely reachedfruitionin a successfulinstitution.There searchersmaintained that thisvision involved
"arrivingat shared understandingsaboutwhattheschoolis presentlylike and what the desiredstateis forthe school"(Ellis&Joslin,1990,5).Thus all involved tooktime tohave a backwardlookatwherethey had come fromasan institution andfrom thesetraditionsbuill the shared future.
Infact,these researche rsassertedthat reform was thewrongword for whatwasneeded. In citing Deal,Ellisand JosHn(1990) stated thatthe deep structuresand practicesot a schoolcould notbe reformed;they had to be transformed.Transforming a school meant alteringits fundamentalcharacter
andidentity andthis waswhatvisionwas allabout.Itrequired thatarr stakeho lders workat renegotiatingtheritua ls.regularities.and routine softhe school.Thusthevision could not comefromone constituent.the le ader,bulhad todeve lop fromacommitmentof all to inve stwillingnessand abilityto reachthe desiredfuture.Theysuggested thattheinitiative beganthroughsmallmatte rs whichaffected the day-tO-day work ofth e peopleintheinstitution.Fromthe se smallstarts peoplegot achancetobeinvolved,showle adershi p,andtake ownersh ip.Thepeopl e worke d together to buildon thesuccesses.
Rouecheet at (1989) talkedaboutvisionaries likeLeetecocca andHarry Trumanwho hada uniquevision andworked withandthroughother s in their organizations todevelopa sharedvision.Such vision wasmore thanone individual'sposition.They main tained thatsharedvisio n camefrom transfor mationallead ership.Transformationalleader s"operateintegrativ ely.
bringingotherpeoplein.bridgingmultip lerealities,andreconcep tualizing activitiesto take accoun t ofthisnew.shared reality" (Roueche etal..1989,112 ).
Thus.tocreatetheshared vision,theleader createdavisionof whatan institut ioncouldbe andsoldthisvisionby personalexample andsuccessful experienceso thatit made itpossibleforotherstopart icipat e in acollaborative way.To achie ve this sharedvisionall members ofthe schoolworke d ina collabora tive wa yto sharetheirvalues and struggled withintegratin g theseinto acomm on belief with theleaderfacilitating the process.This sugge stedthat all
30
was nOllidyincreatinga visionandthough institutionsneededtohaveavision for their Mureit washardworkanditneeded tobecollaborative
Roue ch e atet(1989) offeredaspecial analogyto emphasizethe point on facilitatingand collaborating.They asserted Ihalthesuccessofthe shared vision require dtheleader andfollow er sto work in concert•theleader doingthe workof composing.orchestratingand enabli ng aquality soundthatwas achiev ed by and throughthe in stitution'smusicians.the staff.The shared vision beca meconc retely a part of the institution throug hstrategi cplanning
Collaborativeinputwasessentialin a climateof support andrisk-taking onthepartof the feed erand th efollow ers,Through thesupported risk -taking . peopledeve lopedgrealer own ershipwhich ledto morerisk·laking.Thingswere noteasyandsafe insuch climates.however.support and sharingwere.The writersmaintainedthaIabalancedenvironmen tbroughtgreaterenablingof the followe rs.Fo ur fundamentalelementsof such an environmentwere:
1.effedivecommunication
2.freedomforallecseinvolvedinthein stitution to develop successfulapproaches tomeeting institutiOnalneeds 3.re spect ofthetradition s and structur es appropriate 10the
in stitution
4.theconstant pursuit ofstudent andprofessionalexcellence (Ro ueche elal.,1989,121).
Senge(1990) affirmor.:llhata shared vision was aforceof mighty power radi ating from people's heart s. Shared vision inspired a commitmentfrom all withi n theorganization whereas one person'svision couldat bestcommand
compliance from thegroup.There wasa commitment because peoplewere connectedby a commonendeavour.He emphasizedtheimportance of shared vision by considering it as thatwhich (1)changedpeople's relationship with the organization;(2) providedthe rudderthat kepttheleemin q processonits course whenstressf ulsituationsdeveloped; and (3)compelledcourage .
Senge(1990 )proceededto outline that shared vision emergedinthe organizationsinceitwasrevealedin eachindividual's set of values end aspirations.Thus the organizationthatwas buildinga shared visionwas constantlyencouragingeveryone withinthe organizationto develop apersonal vision throughsettinga climate thatdid notinfringeonindividual freedoms but offeredopportunities to express one'svalueswithout reprisal.Therole of the leader was to communicate a sense of visionso that others willinglyandopenly discussed theirpersonalvision.Over time the personalvisionsconnectedto form theinstitutiona lvision to which allwerecommitted.It was not atop-down vision oranimposed visionbutaproduct of the sharing broughtaboutby carefu l listeningtomultiple visions.Such developmen tdidnot causepeopleto buy into thevision norrequirethat peoplebesold onthe vision.People werecommitted to a commonvisionand operatedwithinthe organizationto see that the vision was implemented.People wereenrolled.They broughtenergy,passion.and excitementto allthey did.
32
louis and Miles(1990),in research on school improvement effortsin Americanhigh schools , offered their insights on theideaofvision building within the organization.Although they contended that thecharismaticleaderwas not whatcreated the sustfl iningvisionwithin an organizationtheydidsay that the leaderwas a keyplayer.Tobuildvision they espoused threepreconditions.
Firstly,there was the presenceof a principa lwho waswillingtothink visi on and work with others in the extendedprocessofdevel oping,owning,andusinga vision. Secondly,therewasa sound staffconnectednesssothatthetask of spreadi ngown ership andtheunderstandingofvision wereattained.Thirdly, there was school-based controloverstaff ingtheschoo lso thatthevision could be reinforced and maintained.
louisand Miles (1990) supportedthe idea thatthevision developed throughthe building processwas not a beginning stepininstitutional improvementbut took placeovertime and required the empowerment ofthe staff.There hadto be real ownership of this value-laden dream for the school.
Noamountof elaboratecommunicationexercisesorformalparticipationon voting committeeswould do it. Itwas ccnleved through the day-to-daywork of planning,implementing, and managing change efforts.
Fullan (1993)offered caution aboutvision as part ofreform. He identified vision as necessaryfor successbutmaintainedthat in manycases itwas
misunderstoodand misappli ed.Therewere three reasonstosupportthe contentionthatvision should comelaterin the change process:
1.Underconditionsof dynamic complexity,people need a good deal ofreflectiveexperiencebeforetheycan forma plausible vision. Visionmergesfrom,morethan precedes ,action.
2.Sharedvisionwhich is essentialforsuccess ,must evolve through thedynamicinteraction oforganizational members and leaders.Thistakes lime and will not succeedunless thevision buildingis somew hatopen ended.
3.Skilldevelopment is essential because with outskill, vision remains superficial (Fullan,1993,127).
Deep ownersl"ip was what Fullan proposed andthiscould onlydevelop through thek~arningthatcane forthin engaging all members inthesolving of problems associatedwith theorganization.
Effec tiv eSchool s
Effect ive schools were the majorconcern ofmanywho talkedorwrote aboutsch ooling since the mid1960's.James Coleman,an Americanresearcher of the time,foundthrcugh a larGe scale survey of American schoolsthat the academicachievementof studentswas notdue to thechild's school ingbutwas the result of factors related to familybackgr ound (Rutterat aI.,1979).This research sparkedfurther studyand differentfindings withdifferent results.Case studies discussedbyBlumbergand Greenfield (1986 ) andGilchrist (1989) were bultwosources of the growingpool ofknowledge on effective schoolsand their effect on studentachievement.
34
Effective schools were defin ed interm sof adirecti ontoward such things as stude ntattendance,delinquency,general behaviour,and attitudes of students,aswell as interms of studentachievement.Suchan emphasisledtoa descripti onof effectiveschools asthoseinwh ich stude ntachievementand development ofcharacter wereimportant (Down er,19 91I,Such anemphasis in effective schoolscausedoneto examinebo th thecontent factorsand process fact ors.Th econtentfactors includ ed effective teacher characteristicsand behaviou r,supportive scho ol leadership, and favo urablehome-scnoot relations Th e process factors were comprisedofclearlysla te d goals,objective s,mission , schoo l-baseddeclslon-makmgand collaboration(Downer,1991).An in-depth studyofthesefactors included curriculumand instructionandtheclimatewith in theschool.
Thesuccess or failureof aschool was set bythe abl1ityofthe principa lto lead thest aff in theplanning,implementing, andimprovingthecurric ular programof the school(Li p ham,1981).Succes sfulschools establisheda curricula rstructure foreach subject taughtwhich included"alist oftopics ,skills, or concepts to be covered:specific studentObjective s to be accompliShed;lists ofre source s classified by objecti ves ;and masterylevels setforeach subjector course alongwithmastery testsfor eachcourse" (Ubben &Hughes,1987,123), The sf' writersalsostaledthatoutli nes,objectives, and testsneeded tobe used byallteachers at agivengradelevel.Thtsimplie d that the planningdecisions
werenotunila teralbutaconcerted effort of thosedirectlyre sponsibleunderthe directionofthein struct ional leader.This propositionwas supported bythework of Rutter etat,(1979 ) who,in a study of London's in ner schools,found that teachersin less effective schoolsworked ontheirownin curriculum development withtheconsequence that littleco-ordinationoccurredbetween teachers.In theeffective schools,teachers did not haveabsolute freedom in the plannin g of thecourses theytaught.In respectto curriculum planning ,the message from theresearchstated abovewas that Iheprincipalwas
'''''3
lead er but slaffinvolvementbrough t ownership 10the proce ss andenabled the implem entation pro ce ss to be smoother andmore effec tive.Theimplemenl ation of thecurricul umwas traditionally the work of the dassroomteache r.Ineffective schoolsthiswas thecase.How ever,the principalwas also activelyinvolvedin curriculumimplementation.Atthe primary andele mentary level thiscouldbeachievedthrough involvementinthescncors readingprogram(Wilson. 1982)or through effective classroomleaching (Blumberg&Green field,1986).AIthehigh school/evel,where specialization wasmore importa nt,theprincipal couldbeseenobservingaclass a day(CUo, 1989).Thispresen ce served moreto givetheschoollhesen sethat theschool's curricu lum wasvery important. Effectivecurriculum implement ation couldbe seen through flexib leclassroomgroupings anda varietyof learningactivities specifically developed 10 account forindividual differences in learning .An
36
inclusionof fieldtrips,films,slides,and filmstripscoupledwith a variety of printedmaterialfor effectiveinstructionwerealso considered(Ediger,1988).
Curriculum development and implementationwere foundinall schools.The hallmarkof the effective schoolwas that the planningandimplementation throughinstruction werecloselyfollowedby monitoring andevaluating each program.Inteet a contentionwasthai "an unmonitoredcurriculummay as well not exist" (English,1987, 41).Effective monitoringwasa collaborativeeffort betweenthe principalandtheteachers who worked to identif ycriteriatobe observed and used in determini ngsuccessfulteaching(Vorn berg, 1988).
The princi pal'seffective useof classroomvisitationandprefpost conferen cingprovidedthe opportunityto break downthebarriers aroundteacher isolation. Suggestions forimprovementininstructioncould bemade so that masterteacherswere matched with thosewhorequir ed instr uctional improvements(Jaco bson,1987).
Schoolsidentifiedaseff ectivecould operate from whatappeared to be a managementviewpoint.Somemanagerial tasks seen from a leadership perspectiveincludedarticulatin g policie s and norms,whichgenerateda school climate;hiringpersonnel,which was seriousbusinessin effectiveschools;
supervisin gperso nne lthrough an informaland culturalapproach;coordinating studentservices ,suchas counse lling,guidance,hoalt h servicesandplace ment in particular programs,whichhelpedresolve student difficulties;andbUdg~" ting
which involved the conscioususe ofbudgetary decisionsto maximizethe likel ihoodthat studentslearned(Donmoyer & Wag staff,199 0).
Athirdpropo salfor effectiveschools involved thepreparationof schools to meet thechallenges of thetwenty-firstcentury.Such a propositio n considered the shared leadershipof all professionalstaff throughstrategies such as allowing teachers to becomeresponsiblefor sta ff de velopm ent; creating an instructional council withinthe school;creating the positionof in s tructional dean;and recognizing the valueofpeer coachingand collaboration(Cunard, 1990).
The diversityof activitiesengaging the work of thoseinan effective schoolattested tothe uni quenessof each school. Yet therewasacommonality, inthatinstructionfor studentswas attheheart ofall efforts withinth e organization.Ther e was,however , considerablevari ation in approach based on theleadership andthe schoolcon text-the staff,studentsand the community ("P rincipal",19 83).
Schoolingof childre nalwaystookplace with ina climat eorcu lture.
Cu lturewasseenas the glue which held schools toget hersinceitwas
"composedofthe sharednorms,values,beliefs,andassumptionsaboutthe wor ld ofworkthat shapeho w peop lethink, feel,andact" (P eterso n,1988,252).
Ina synthesisofre search on effec tiveschoo ls,Down er(1991) asserted that suchschoolswererecogn iz edbytheir strongcultureswhichcontrib uted to the
38
tight links that allowed their principalstoinfluence and shape the instructional program and general operationofschoolswhile at lhesame limeprovid ing autonomyfor individual unitsandteadlets withintheschool.Thus,effecl ive school dimatewa s charaderizedby orderlines s and a measure of predictabilit y;
an appreciationfor theval ueoftime;an emphasison studentandteacher excellence;and a sense of pepoee.frankness,and enthusiasmwith regardto teachingandlearning (Haas,198 3).
The orderly climetewas achievedthrough the colla borativedevelopment ofpolicies andpro cedur e s which were clearlystated andwellcom municated to allstakeholdersin the scho ol organization.One policy,whichseriouslyaffected the climateofanyschool,revolved aroundtheissue of discipline.Theworkof Jones(1984), Lorden(1983),Rutter etat.(1979) attestedthat in successful schools disciplinepolicieswerebasedonthe estab lishedgoalsof the school.
Anexaminat ion of 11 errect lvehighschools foundthat
First,schoolrules and standardsfor behaviour wereclearl y specfledSecond,the rules and consequences forbreakingthem were systematically comm un icated to parentsand students.Third, the consequences wereincr ementalin nature.Fou rth.therules werefairlyand consistentlyenforced everywh ereon the school campuses.Fifth,agreat deal ofthoug ht and energywent intothe enforcementof school rules(Murphy&Halli ng er,1985,20-21 ).
Ord erli nesswas also accomplished through aneffective useof the PA system atdesignated times of thedayandan avoidanceof its use during the
instructionallimeforminorannouncements.The presenceoftheprincipal throughoutthe schoo lat sign ifi cant times,especia llybeforemorningclasses,at kmchanddismis sal, also esta bli shed anorderly atmosphere in the school (Cilo, 198 9).
Timewas averyimportant aspect of the lifeof an effecti ve SChoo/, particula rlyinstructionaltime.StudiesbyEdmonds (1979)andRutteret el.
(1979)suggestedthatthe schoolswit hgreatest studentachievementwere more task-oriented- classe sstartedpromptly,more time wasspent ontopic, and ctasaroor,interaction was moreona class-widebasisthanon anindivi dual basis.Also,continued cont actwith thehomes of studentswho exhibited absen teebehaviourindica tedtolhem thatlime wasimportant inthe sch ool (Eicho llz,1984).
Researchconfirmed th atanemph asisonexcellencecouldberealized throughsetting higheapecta uons forte adlers and students (A ustin,1979;
Edmonds,1979;Rutteretat.1979).In theeffective school there wa san acceptancethat all Childrencouldlearn and thus expectationswereset to match abilities.One expectation,which correlatedpositivelywithhigh stude nt ach ievement,related totheassignme nt of homework.Rutteratat,(1979) found,in theirstudy ofinnerLondon schools,tha tlhoseschools,in which homework was frequently se t and checkswere made todeterminethatteachers did infaclassignhomework,tended tohavebetter studentou t comes than
• •
schoolswhich madelittle use of homew ork. To complementstudentexcellence, effective schoolshad the expect a tion that teachersin the organizationbe sound scholars whoexhibitedenthusiasmandwere conscienti ousin performingtheir duties withinthe school.
Many researchersdeclare dthatrewards neededto be givento thos ewho achieved the expectationssetfor them (Edmonds,1979;Eicholtz,1984;Haas, 1983 ;Rutteratat,1979;Wilson,1982 ).Rewar ds,itwas argued,improved self- esteemand couldtake the formofpubli c displaysofacc omplishm ents,phone cells toparents,andlorassemb lieswhich highlig hted studentand teach er achievements towardexcellence.
A senseof purposecouldbe cultivatedthroughanemphasis on thevision or mission oftheschool. The principaland staffcouldcreateasense of opennessby willinglylisteningto studentsandinvolving them indecision s which affect ed themdirectly (Eicholtz,1964).Research sugges tedthat it wasalso import antto berational and fra n kwhen dealing withyoungpeop le(Haa s, 1983).
Theopennesscouldbefurtherextendedbyinvol vingthe parents in thelife of the school.
Communicationwiththe home was an importantactivitywithinan effectiveschool. Research byHawleyandRosenhollz ;PurkeyandSmith;and Fullan.citedbyEpstein (1987), identif ie dparentinvolve mentas one of the criticalorganizationalvariables for schoolswhichwere successf u l. The same
to pic was presen tedas aphenomenoncalledcop roduction -'thoseactivities, individualandcollective,inschoo lorat home,th atcontribu tetoschool eff orts to instructpupilsmore effect ivelyan d raisepupilach ievement" (Davies,1987, 148).Heprocee ded 10outline six activitie s 'Nhichcouldbeco-operati vely develope d toachieve the specifiedends-studen t achievemen t.Thespecified ac tivitie s were:
well-co -ordinate dhome tutoringprogram s;
• hOmework helperand homeworkhotline project s;
• frequentand specific rep o rting ofpupilachievement byteacher tothefamily wit hsugges~ionsas to how classroomeffort s can be rein forced at home;
parent educatio ndesign edtomakeparent s more knowledgeable about wh atschools aretrying to do;
• homevisitorprogramsto providespecial helptoandadv iselow- income andimm igrantfamilies; and
parent voluntee rsassistingteac hersin the classr oom and in prepar in ginstru ctional materials(D avies ,1987,148-149).
Finally,aclimateofoptimis mwas develop edwhen tea chers remain ed enthusiasticabout theirwork.They need ed to begivendiversityinassignment, afforded theoppo rtunitytopartic ip atein staff dev elopmen t, and recogn ized for thesup erior effortandatt en tion they gaveto imp roving instru ctionfor stu d ents (Edmonds,1979; Haas,1983;Sa p hier&King,1985).
Summary
Researchpresentedin this review of the literatureindicated that thework of administeringaschoo l differedfromthatof leadingsuch aninstitution.
42
Leader ship, in educationinstitutions,brought vision of a new andbelter future forthe school.There were two pointsof viewin relationto vision.One groupof researchers presented the opinion thaitheleaderneeded to have a visionwhich got developedas theinstitution's vision.A secondgroup of researchers offered thepositionthat vision developedas a sharedprocesswithintheschoolwithan stakeholderstakingownershipunder thefacilitative direction ofthe school's leadership,the principal.
Vision buildingwas importa ntworkin an effectiveschool and developed through theoey-to- oaywork of "ma naging"the school.Indeed, schoolleaders throughtheirworkof directingand leading staffininstructionalimprovements, setting directionforstaff development,andsupporting initiatives relat ed topolicy developmentand studentachievement,appearedto bemanagingtheir schools.
How ever, time,thought,andenergywere put intothese taskssotheschool was reco gnized as working towardthatwhich was better for the education of students
The resea rchpresentedindicate dthatthe leadershiproleof the principal was thekey to theeffectiveschool ."Itis not theteachers, or the central office people,or the universitypeople whoarerealty causingschoolsto be the way they are or changing the way theymight be,It is whoeverlivesin theprinc ipal's office"(Barth, 1976, 21).Clinton(1986)contended that strong schoolswere created by strongleaders.Resear chby Strange (1990)indicated th at the
managementofthe curriculumandthe promoti onof a strong schoolclimate flowedfromthe visionofthe effectiveprincipa lin the effective school.
Chapter 3 Methodology
Thereisadiversity of thinkingonappropriate methods of research within thefieldof education.Thetraditional viewflowedfrom the positivisti c par adigm whichsupported scientificmethods nee'vily weighted toward observationdevoidofvaluesandinterpretation.Morerecenl'ya considerable amountofresearc h devel opedout ofthe constructivist paradigm. tnsuch research,theresearcher becameimmersed inthe studyinthe hope thaIunderstandingsoftheresearchsubject/groupcould bede veloped.Suchunderstandings,itwa s suggested wouldlea d 10 a greaterappreciationofthe structureand process of the seltingand would providesensitized concepts and themes whichotherscould findhelpful.
This researcher chose to workwithinthe constructivistparadigm,usingan ethnographicapproach.The focuswas ona schoolprincipalrecognized asaleader inmoving the schooltoward excellence.The idea was to outline the principal'svisionof education and howthisvision was translatedinto actionswithinthe schoolingprocess.The ethnographic approachincluded participantobservation,interviews,anaunobtrusive measuresas data collectiontechniques.
Philo soph i calAssump tion s
Before elaborating on thedatacollection techni que s as such,itis appropriatetoreviewthephilosoph icalassurr.ptionsofnaturalist ic research The primary assumptionuponwhlchnaturalistic6:1quirywas foundedconcemec:lthe ideaofreality.Lincoln(1990) maintainedthat naturalistic research acceptedthat sincereality was socialtherewere multip le constructionsofit.Itwasconside redthatthe soci alreality of naturalism was.;Jrealityof meanings,foundin theinterpre tation or establi sh ed bythe interpretation of the investigator who wasin a relationsh ipwiththose beinginvestigated(Smith,1990).Thus,naturalistic research er s understoodreality as a set ofholisticconstruct ions thatwere intra-andinterpersona lin nalure.
A secondassump tionofnaturalisticenquirerswas that theory arosefromthedata collectionprocessratherthanprecedingit(linco ln, 1990).This meanllhat theory was acore part oftheprogressof conduclingresearch butthatthe"research shape s,intietes.reformulates, deflects andclarifies the theory"(Burgess,1982,2 10).Thisprocess, calledgrounded theory , requiredarejectionofconce pts which were preciselyandoperationall ydefinedin favourof sensitizingconcepts which gave a generalsense ofreference for the investigatorasthe study wasconducted.Naturalisticresearchers accept edthat a sensitizing
..
concept"retain sclose conta ct with thecomplex ityof social reality,rather than trying10boltiton to fixed,preformu la ted imag es"(Bryman,1988, 68).
The th irdassumptionof a naturali stic perspec tive on research assumed tha t there wasa connec tionbetwee n theknow er and knowledge.Thiswasto maintainthat knowled ge was drivenbyhowthe mind wascons tructe dandoperatedandcouldthu s be knownind irectly (Kinche loe,1991).Such a view of know ledge wasatvariancewith the positi visticper spective ofknowled gewhichconsideredthat ther e was a body of knowl edge outside thatofhu man exper iencewhich couldbe applied tohumansinany situation(Kincheloe,199 1).
Afourth assu mptionofnatura listic inqu irywasthaitherewas no certainty ornewbody of auth ority or laws on whichtobasehumanbehaviour.Thebeli ef wasthat peopl e'sideasabou t theworldwereconstantly changing "becau se humans areincapabl ethankfully, ofa fina lpercep tion"(Kinche loe,1991.118 ).
Given theseassumptions,it wasobviousthat"a natura listicperspective of resear chrequ ires:thatinquirybemoved out ofthelabora tory andinto natu ral contexts'(Lincol n, 1990, 78).
