The changing leadership role of the principal: Implications for principal assessment

Glasman, Naftaly S.; Heck, Ronald H.

doi:10.1080/01619569209538708

Cited by 48 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…382-383) Our assertion of a context-based leadership extends beyond correctly supporting teachers and effective instruction through either controlled or shared leadership (see Firestone & Wilson, 1985;Miller & Rowan, 2006;Rowan, 1990). Each characteristic of the school, students, teachers, and principal influences a principal's leadership behavior in a different way (Glasman & Heck, 1992;Goldring et al, 2008;Hallinger & Murphy, 1986;Krüger, Witziers, & Sleegers, 2007;Mayrowetz, Murphy, Louis, & Smylie, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To date, no study has utilized nationally representative data to demonstrate how school context helps predict different types of principals across the United States. Given previous literature, we argue that principals mediate information about the school context, such as district accountability, teacher and student background, and so on, in order to assess how to direct their own leadership (see Bandura, 1982;Glasman & Heck, 1992;Leithwood et al, 2007;Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008;Portin et al, 2009;Spillane, 2006). With this information, principals formulate perceptions about which leadership behaviors will be successful, then create school conditions with their chosen leadership (Bandura, 1997;Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008;Portin et al, 2009;Spillane, Camburn, & Pareja, 2007;Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Are the Different Types of Principals Across the United States? A Latent Class Analysis of Principal Perception of Leadership

Urick

Bowers

2013

Educational Administration Quarterly

133

170

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Effective styles of principal leadership can help address multiple issues in struggling schools, such as low student achievement and high rates of teacher attrition. Although the literature has nominated certain “idealized” leadership styles as being more or less effective, such as transformational, instructional, and shared instructional leadership, we have little evidence about how principals may or may not choose to practice these styles across U.S. schools. Research Design: Latent class analysis was used to identify different types of principals across the United States. We analyzed the 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey as it presents a unique opportunity to study the different types of U.S. principals since it contains leadership measures not found in other national surveys. A final sample of 7,650 public schools and principals was included in the analysis. Findings: Instead of idealized leadership styles signifying variations in practice, the differences between types of principals were defined by the degree of principal and teacher leadership. Further, the school and principal context, such as school size, urbanicity, accountability performance, and principal background, predicted the three significantly different principal types: controlling, frequent principal leadership; balkanizing, high degree of leadership shared with teachers; or integrating, frequent principal leadership as well as a high degree of leadership shared with teachers. Conclusions: These types suggest that principals simultaneously practice leadership behaviors associated with multiple leadership styles in accordance with their background and school context. These findings provide support for the use of more complex models to assess school leader effectiveness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Are the Different Types of Principals Across the United States? A Latent Class Analysis of Principal Perception of Leadership

Urick

Bowers

2013

Educational Administration Quarterly

133

170

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Joint Committee on Evaluation Standards (1988) developed utility, propriety, feasibility, and accuracy standards for personnel evaluation. These standards are useful guidelines, for example, in developing valid and reliable measures of intended objects of evaluation (e.g., the assistant principal's communication skills and support of teachers), so the intended performance can be measured and separated from contextual or demographic indicators (Glasman and Heck, 1992).…”

Section: Performance Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, only a few empirical studies have focused on evaluating the performance of both new and more experienced administrators as they carry out important functions of their role (Glasman & Heck, 1992;Marshall, 1992). Because of a lack of studies, little is known about the process of socialization into the administrative role, or about how socialization may affect the beginning administrator's performance on a variety of role-related responsibilities (Marshall, 1992;Parkay, Currie, & Rhodes, 1992;Schmidt, 1990).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the interest in holding administrators accountable has increased rapidly over the past decade, the quality of evaluation systems and corresponding assessments of their performance has not (Glasman and Heck, 1992). Moreover, only a few empirical studies have focused on evaluating the performance of both new and more experienced administrators as they carry out important functions of their role (Glasman & Heck, 1992;Marshall, 1992).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Organizational and professional socialization: its impact on the performance of new administrators

Heck

1995

Urban Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While interest in holding administrators accountable for school effectiveness has increased over the past decade, the quality of evaluation systems and corresponding assessments of their performance has not. Few empirical studies have focused on evaluating the performance of new administrators as they carry out important functions of their role, so little is known about the process of socialization and how it may affect the beginning administrator's job performance. The purpose of this study was to propose and test a model of socialization factors that may be related to the evaluation of new elementary and secondary assistant principals' job performance. These factors were grouped into three major sets: individual demographics, professional socialization (i.e., type of administrative preparation), and organizational socialization (e.g., school context).Results of the LISREL covariance structure analysis supported the proposed theoretical model, indicating that organizational socialization directly affected administrative performance. In contrast, the effect of professional socialization on performance was mostly indirect. Moreover, independent of socialization, women in the study were rated as more effective than men. While most of the variation in performance observed was very likely due to individual differences, the findings suggest the importance of considering how an individual is socialized into the profession and the specific school when appraising performance.Recent demands calling for increased educational accountability have focused attention on school administrators' role in providing leadership to improve school effectiveness and student outcomes. With growing attention to accountability, personnel evaluation has become one strategy utilized in efforts to improve schools. For example, Snyder and Ebmeier (1992) indicate that between the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s state-mandated principal evaluation increased from 9 to 27 states. By the late 1980s, it was estimated that 75 percent of the states required some type of principal evaluation (Peters and Bagenstos, 1988).

show abstract

Educational Leadership

Achieving Excellence in Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective school studies, for the most part, have focused on different individual school-level independent variables influencing student achievement and have largely neglected examining contextual variables within the school or school community that may evolve as a result of responding to statewide accountability pressures, including examining how these contextual variables impact student achievement. Further, few studies in the school effectiveness literature provide clear and practical definitions of school-level curricular leadership (Brown, Claudet, & Olivarez, 2003; Bossert, 1998;Hoy & Ferguson, 1985;Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). The purpose of this study was to develop and initially test a multidimensional model exploring relationships between curricular leadership culture (CLC) and school effectiveness (SE) to examine any identifiable contextual variables that may mediate this relationship in different school settings and to develop an instrument -the Curricular Leadership Culture Inventory (CLCI) -that can be administered to teachers and school administrators to identify educator perceptions of links between the quality of school-level curricular leadership culture and school overall effectiveness.

show abstract

The changing leadership role of the principal: Implications for principal assessment

Cited by 48 publications

References 31 publications

What Are the Different Types of Principals Across the United States? A Latent Class Analysis of Principal Perception of Leadership

What Are the Different Types of Principals Across the United States? A Latent Class Analysis of Principal Perception of Leadership

Organizational and professional socialization: its impact on the performance of new administrators

Educational Leadership

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About