Abstract

THE EXTENT TO WHICH LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS OF PRINCIPALS DIFFER IN SCHOOLS AT RISK FOR RECONSTITUTION

CHANCHAL VASHISHTHA

Volume: 2 Issue: 3 2012

Abstract:

The purpose of this study is to test a theoretical causal model concerning how elementary and secondary school principals can influence school student achievement through the frequency of implementation of certain instructional leadership behaviors. After controlling for contextual variables, we hypothesized that three latent variables related to principal instructional leadership (school governance, instructional organization, school climate) affected student achievement. A total of 332 teachers and 56 school principals participated in the study. We conducted separate analyses of the proposed model at the individual and school level. The results confirm that the proposed model fit the data. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the results

Back Download

References

• American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2002,February).
• Governmental relations update. Washington, DC: AACTE.
• Andrews, R.,& Soder, R. (1987). Principal instructional leadership and school achievement. Educational Leadership, 44, 9-11.
• Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform.
• New York: Teachers College Press.
• Austin, G. (1979). Exemplary schools and the search for excellence. Educational Leadership, 37, 10-14.
• Connell, N. (1999). Beating the odds: High-achieving elementary schools in high Cuban, L. (1988).
• Effective schools: A friendly but cautionary note. Phi Delta Kappan, 64, 695-696.
• Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school cultures: The heart of Dwyer, D. C., Lee, G. V., Rowan, B., & Bossert, S. (1984). The principal's role in instructional management: Five participant observation studies of principals in action. Paper prepared for the American Educational Research Association, Montreal. Far West Laboratory, Instructional Management Program.
• Glaser, J. S. (1991). Feminism and professionalism in teaching and educational administration.
• Educational Administration Quarterly, 27, 321-342.
• Redefining leadership for the 21st century. 101st Yearbook of the National Green, R. L. (2001).
• Practicing the art of leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Greenlee, B. J., & Bruner, D. Y. (2001). State assessment rediscovered: Can accountability tests initiate better reading? Wingspan, 14(1), 2-5. Bellvue, WA: Coursewise.
• Holcomb, E. L. (2001). Asking the right questions: Techniques for collaboration and school changes (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Hoo-Ballade, M. (2004). Principal leadership and effective schooling for ESL
• Jantzi, D., & Leithwood, K. (1993). Toward an explanation of variation in teacher implementation of Kentucky's school-based performance award program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33, 474- 505.
• Kline, W. A. (1987). A collegial approach to developing leadership. Educational Kopple, H. (1985).
• Replicating success: School district of Philadelphia. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
• Kuch, W. T. (1983). The role of the elementary school principal as building manager Laffey, J. L. (1980).
• The role of the elementary school principal in the school reading program: Research and Practice. Reading Teacher, pp.632-636.
• Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 50(8), 37-40.
• Leithwood, K. A. (1995). Expert problem solving: Evidence from school and Leithwood, K. A., & Montgomery, D. J. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 309-339.
• University, National Council of States on Inservice Education, 4(14).
• Lezotte, L. (1992). Creating the total quality effective school. Okemos, MI: Effective
• Lindle, J. C. (2000). School-based decision making: A review of research on the Kentucky Education Reform. Lexington: Kentucky Institute for Education Research.
• Lipham, J. M. (1982). Effective principal, effective school. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary Schools.
• Malen, B., & Ogawa, R. L. (1988). Professional-patron influence on site-based governance councils: A confounding case study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10, 251-270.
• Malen, B., Ogawa, R., & Kranz, J. (1989). An analysis of site-based management implementation.
• Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
• McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand Change Agent Study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
• Midgely, C., & Wood, S. (1993). Beyond site-based management: Empowering teachers to reform schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 245-252.
• Maryland and Kentucky schools on probation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(3).
• Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Murphy, J. (1990). Principal instructional leadership. In P.W. Thurston and L.L.
• Lotto (Eds.), Advances in educational administration. 1B. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Sergiovanni, T. (1979). Rational bureaucratic, collegial, and political views of the principal's role. Theory in practice (Thematic Issue: The role of the principal as instructional leader) 16(1), 12-20.
• Sergiovanni, T. (1990). Value-added leadership: How to get extraordinary Shavelson, R. J. (1988). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
• Shoemaker, J., & Fraser, H. W. (1981). What principals can do: Some implications Smith, W. F., & Andews, L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make