Purpose:The study investigates how various accountability contexts—including states, local boards, districts, school site councils, parent associations, and teachers—affect the ability of principals to influence instructional and supervisory decisions in their schools.
Data:Data for the analysis come from 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey responses of 8,524 elementary, middle, and high school principals in low-, moderate-, and high-control states. Principals responded to queries regarding their personal influence and the influence of various other policy actors on decisions in the instructional and supervisory domains in the principals’ schools.
Analysis:To examine variation in principal influence within and between states, the study uses hierarchical linear modeling as its primary analytic technique.
Findings:Results indicate that the various accountability contexts differentially affect principals’ influence, which also vary by domain, extent of state control, and region.
Implications for Practice:Principals’ influence in both the supervisory and instructional domains is strongly related to that of teachers’ active participation in decision making, suggesting the benefits of mutuality in school leadership.
Implications for Research:How do state accountability systems differ in relation to improving student achievement? How has an accountability-influenced learning process led to the reculturing of a school district and its schools?
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Kerbnow, D., Rollow, S., & Easto, J. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for change. Boulder, CO: Westview.
4.
Cibulka, J. G. (2000). Organizational learning in educational policy systems. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Understanding schools as intelligent systems (pp. 185-210). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
5.
Cohen, D. K. (1982). Policy and organization: The impact of state and federal educational policy on school governance. Harvard Educational Review, 52(4), 474-499.
6.
Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. P. (1992). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. Review of Research in Education, 18, 3-49.
7.
Conley, D. T. (1993). Roadmap to restructuring: Policies, practices and the emerging visions of schooling. Eugene: University of Oregon, Eric Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
8.
Conley, D. T. (2003). Who governs our schools?New York: Teachers College Press.
9.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2003). State education accountability reports and indicator reports: Status of reports across the states—2003. Washington, DC: Author.
10.
Crow, G., Hausman, C., & Scribner, J. (2002). Role of the school principal. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 189-210). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
Elmore, R. F. (1993). The role of school districts in instructional improvement. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education systems (pp. 96-124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Firestone, W., & Shipps, D. (2003, April). How do educational leaders interpret the multiple accountabilities they face? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
13.
Fuhrman, S. H. (Ed.). (1993). Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Fuhrman, S., Clune, W. H., & Elmore, R. F. (1988). Research on education reform: Lessons on the implementation of policy. Teachers College Record, 90(2), 237-257.
15.
Fuhrman, S. H., & Elmore, R. F. (Eds.). (2004). Redesigning accountability systems for education. New York: Teachers College Press.
16.
Gruber, K. J., Wiley, S. D., Broughman, S. P., Strizek, G. A., & Burian-Fitzgerald, M. (2002, May). Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999-2000: Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs elementary and secondary schools (National Center for Education Statistics Report No. 2002-313). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
17.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
18.
Knapp, M. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 227-266.
19.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
20.
Leithwood, K., Begley, P. T., & Cousins, J. B. (1994). Developing expert leadership for future schools. New York: Falmer.
21.
Leithwood, K. A., & Menzies, T. (1998). A review of the research concerning the implementation of site-based management. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(3), 233-285.
22.
Lugg, C., Bulkley, K., Firestone, W., & Garner, W. (2002). Shifts in the discourse defining the superintendency: Historical and current foundations of the position. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 20-41). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Malen, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (1988). Professional-patron influence on site-based governance councils: A confounding case study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 241-270.
24.
Manzo, K. K. (2001). Protests over state testing widespread. Education Week, 20(36), 1-1, 26-26.
25.
Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for teachers’ instructional practice and student academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 245-275.
26.
Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Teacher empowerment and the capacity for organizational learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 707-750.
27.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2002). Organizational learning in high stakes accountability environments: Lessons from an urban school district. Theory and Research in Educational Administration, 1, 1-39.
28.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional approaches. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
29.
McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133-152.
30.
Mohrman, S. A., Wohlstetter, P., & Associates. (1994). School-based management: Organizing for high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
31.
Nance, J. P., & Marks, H. M. (2006). Principal and teacher influence on school curriculum and instruction policy in the context of multiple accountabilities: Evidence from a national study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
32.
Newmann, F. M., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33.
Peterson del Mar, D. (1994). School-site councils. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
34.
Popkewitz, T. S. (1991). A political sociology of educational reform: Power/Knowledge in teaching, teacher education, and research. New York: Teachers College Press.
35.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1985). School reform: The district policy implications of the effective schools literature. The Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 353-389.
36.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2000). HLM5: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
37.
Spillane, J. P. (1999). State and local government relations in the era of standards-based reform: Standards, state policy instruments, and local instructional policy making. Educational Policy, 13(4), 546-572.
38.
Spillane, J. P., & Seashore, K. (2002). School improvement processes and practices: Professional learning for building instructional capacity. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 83-104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Tourkin, S. C., Pugh, S. W., Fondelier, S. E., Parmer, R. J., Cole, C., Jackson, B., et al. (2004). 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) data file user’s manual. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
40.
Tucker, M. & Codding, J. (2002). Preparing principals in the age of accountability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
41.
U. S. Department of Education, National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: Author.
