Do school district central offices and school principals have the same level of influence on school decisions? What does the district–principal power relationship look like? These two questions are discussed but are rarely examined in the literature. Based on a nationally representative sample from the 2007-2008 Schools and Staffing Survey data, we explored these two questions. Specifically, we applied the paired samples t test to compare the district central offices’ and school principals’ influences and applied the multilevel modeling method to estimate the power relationship. We found that (a) on average, districts and principals had the same level of influence on establishing curriculum, whereas school principals had higher influence on the other six decision areas examined (performance standards, teachers’ professional development programs, evaluating teachers, hiring teachers, discipline policies, and school budget), and (b) a tight coupling power relationship between district central offices and school principals was identified for the three areas related to the technical core of schools (performance standards, establishing curriculum, and teachers’ professional development programs), a loose coupling power relationship was revealed for the personnel (hiring and evaluating teachers) and budget areas, while a decoupling power relationship was found for discipline policy decisions. Discussions and implications for school leadership and policy were included in this study.
AndersonM. (2012). The struggle for collective leadership: Thinking and practice in a multi-campus school setting. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40, 328-342.
2.
BacharachS. B.BauerS.SheddJ. B. (1986). The work environment and school reform. Teachers College Record, 88, 241-256.
3.
BarthR. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make the difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.
BasciaN.CummingA.DatnowA.LeithwoodK.LivingstoneD. (2005). International handbook of educational policy. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
5.
BassB. M.BassR. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
6.
BlaséJ.BlaséJ. (2001). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
7.
BoldenR. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, 251-269.
8.
BrownM.RutherfordD.BoyleB. (2000). Leadership for school improvement: The role of the head of department in UK secondary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 237-258.
9.
BrunnerC. C. (1998). The new superintendency supports innovation: Collaborative decision making. Contemporary Education, 69, 79-82.
10.
BrunnerC. C.SchumakerP. (1998). Power and gender in the “new view” public schools. Policy Studies Journal, 26, 30-45.
11.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
CrowsonR. L.MorrisV. C. (1985). Administrative control in large-city school systems: An investigation of Chicago. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21, 51-70.
13.
DahlR. A. (1957). The concept of power. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2, 201-215.
14.
DavisO. L. (1998). National and state curriculum standards: Reasonable consequences, possible prospects. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 13, 297-299.
15.
DiamondJ. B. (2013). Distributed leadership: Examining issues of race, power, and inequality. In TillmanL. C.ScheurichJ. J. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational leadership for equity and diversity (pp. 101-122). New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
DiamondJ. B.SpillaneJ. P. (2016). School leadership and management from a distributed perspective: A 2016 retrospective and prospective. Management in Education, 30, 147-154.
17.
ElmoreR.BurneyD. (1997). School variation and systemic instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. Pittsburgh, PA: High Performance Learning Communities Project, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
18.
ElmoreR. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership (pp. 1-46). Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
19.
FeldmanM. S.PentlandB. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94-118.
20.
FirestoneW. A. (1985). The study of loose coupling: Problems, progress, and prospects. In KerckhoffA. (Ed.), Research in sociology of education and socialization (Vol. 5, pp. 3-30). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
21.
FitchettP. G.HeafnerT. L.LambertR. (2014). Assessment, autonomy, and elementary social studies time. Teachers College Record, 116(10), 1-36.
22.
FlodenR. E.PorterA. C.AlfordL. E.FreemanD. J.IrwinS.SchmidtW. H.SchwilleJ. R. (1988). Instructional leadership at the district level: A closer look at autonomy and control. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24, 96-124.
23.
FullanM. (2013). Motion leadership in action: More skinny on becoming change savvy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
GamoranA.DreebenR. (1986). Coupling and control in educational organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 612-632.
25.
GordonR. D. (2010). Dispersed leadership: Exploring the impact of antecedent forms of power using a communicative framework. Management Communication Quarterly, 24, 260-287.
26.
GrissomJ. A.Nicholson-CrottyS.HarringtonJ. R. (2014). Estimating the effects of No Child Left Behind on teachers’ work environments and job attitudes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 417-436.
27.
GronnP. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management & Administration, 28, 317-338.
28.
GronnP. (2002). Distributed leadership. In LeithwoodK.HallingerP.Seashore-LouisK.Furman-BrownG.GronnP.MulfordW.RileyK. (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 697-734). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
HalletA. C. (Ed.). (1995). Reinventing central office: A primer for successful schools. Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
31.
HallettT. (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75, 52-74.
32.
HallettT.VentrescaM. J. (2006). How institutions form: Loose coupling as mechanism in Gouldner’s patterns of industrial bureaucracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 908-924.
33.
HallingerP. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 221-239.
34.
HallingerP.HeckR. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-191.
35.
HannawayJ.SproullL. S. (1978). Who’s running the show? Coordination and control in educational organizations. Administrator’s Notebook, 27(9), 1-4.
36.
HarrisA. (2003). Teacher leadership and school improvement. In HarrisA.DayC.HopkinsD.HadfieldM.HargreavesA.ChapmanC. (Eds.), Effective leadership for school Improvement (pp. 72-83). London, England: Routledge Falmer.
37.
HarrisA. (2009). Distributed leadership and knowledge creation. In LeithwoodK.MascallB.StraussT. (Eds.), Distributed leadership according to the evidence (pp. 253-266). New York, NY: Routledge.
HatcherR. (2005). The distribution of leadership and power in schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26, 253-267.
40.
HeckR. (1992). Principal instructional leadership and the identification of high- and low-achieving schools: The application of discriminant techniques. Administrator’s Notebook, 34(7), 1-4.
41.
HightowerA.KnappM. S.MarshJ. A.McLaughlinM. W. (2002). School districts and institutional renewal. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
42.
HinesS. C.McClearyL. E. (1980). The role of the principal in community involvement. NASSP Bulletin, 64(432), 67-75.
43.
HonigM. (2012). District central office leadership as teaching: how central office administrators support principals’ development as instructional leaders. Education Administration Quarterly, 48, 733-774.
44.
HonigM. I. (2003). Building policy from practice: District central office administrators’ roles and capacity for implementing collaborative education policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 292-338.
45.
HonigM. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 357-383.
46.
HoyA. W.HoyW. K. (2009). Instructional leadership: A research-based guide to learning in schools. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
47.
IngersollR. M. (2003). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
KaniukaT. S. (2014). Considering district and school factors and their relationship to ACT performance in North Carolina: An examination of the ACT pilot results. ISRN Education, 2014, 1-10.
49.
KerrK. A.MarshJ. A.IkemotoG. S.DarilekH.BarneyH. (2006). Strategies to promote data-use of instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112, 496-520.
50.
KnappM.CoplandM.TalbertJ. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective tools for school and district leaders. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching Policy.
51.
LeithwoodK. (1992). The move towards transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 8-12.
52.
LeithwoodK. (2013). Strong districts & their leadership. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Council of Ontario Directors of Education and the Institute for Education Leadership.
53.
LeithwoodK.DayC.SammonsP.HarrisA.HopkinsD. (2006). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. Nottingham, England: National College for School Leadership.
54.
LeithwoodK.EdgeK.JantziD. (1999). Educational accountability: The state of the art. Gütersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Foundation.
55.
LeithwoodK.JantziD. (2012). Collective leadership: The reality of leadership distribution within the school community. In LeithwoodK.LouisK. S. (Eds.), Linking leadership to student learning (pp. 11-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
56.
LeithwoodK.LouisK. S. (2011). Linking leadership to student learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
57.
LeithwoodK.LouisK. S.AndersonS.WahlstromK. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
58.
Mac IverM. A.FarleyE. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the central office in improving instruction and student achievement. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
59.
MalenB.OgawaR.KranzK. (1990). What do we know about school based management? A case study of the literature—A call for research. In CluneW.WitteJ. (Eds.), Choice and control in American education, Volume 2: Decentralization and school restructuring (pp. 289-342). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
60.
MarshJ.KerrK.Schuyler-IkemotoG.DarilekH.SuttorpM.ZimmerR. (2005). The role of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts partnered with the Institute for Learning. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education.
61.
MathesonN.SalganikL. H.PhelpsR. P.PerieM.AlsalamN.SmithT. M. (1996). Education indicators: An international perspective (NCES 96-003). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/96003.pdf
62.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
63.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In MeyerM. W. (Ed.), Environments and organizations (pp. 78-109). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
64.
MeyerJ.RowanB. (Eds.). (1992). The structure of educational organizations, organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
65.
MorrissP. (1987). Power: A philosophical analysis. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
66.
MorrissP. (2002). Power: A philosophical analysis (2nd ed.). Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
67.
MountfordM. (2004). Motives and power of school board members: Implications for school board-superintendent relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 704-741.
68.
MyersD. A. (1973). Teacher power: Professionalization and collective bargaining. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
69.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders 2015. Reston, VA: Author.
70.
NeumerskiC. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here?Educational Administration Quarterly, 49, 310-347.
71.
OrtonJ. D.WeickK. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15, 203-223.
72.
OwensR. G.ValeskyT. C. (2007). Organizational behavior in education: Adaptive leadership and school reform (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
PreacherK. J.ZhangG.KimC.MelsG. (2013). Choosing the optimal number of factors in exploratory factor analysis: A model selection perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48, 28-56.
75.
Reyes-GuerraD.RussoM. R.BogotchI. E.Vásquez-ColinaM. D. (2014). Building a school leadership programme: An American paradox of autonomy and accountability. School Leadership & Management, 34, 414-437.
76.
RorrerA. K.SkrlaL.ScheurichJ. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 307-357.
SergiovanniT. J.CarverF. D. (1973). The new school executive: A theory of administration. New York, NY: Dodd, Mead.
81.
ShenJ.CooleyV.ReevesP.BurtW.RyanL.RaineyJ. M.YuanW. (2010). Using data for decision-making: Perspectives from 16 principals in Michigan, USA. International Review of Education, 56, 435-456.
82.
ShenJ.XiaJ. (2012). The relationship between teachers’ and principals’ decision-making power: Is it a win-win situation or a zero-sum game?International Journal of Leadership in Education, 15, 153-174.
83.
SpillaneJ.BurchP. (2005). Policy, administration, and instructional practice: “Loose Coupling” revisited (Institute for Policy Research Working Paper). Northwestern University.
84.
SpillaneJ. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
85.
SpillaneJ. P.DiamondJ. B. (Eds.). (2007). Distributed leadership in practice. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
86.
SpillaneJ. P.DiamondJ. B.JitaL. (2003). Leading instruction: The distribution of leadership for instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35, 533-543.
87.
SpillaneJ. P.HalversonR.DiamondJ. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.
88.
SpillaneJ. P.HalversonR.DiamondJ. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 3-34.
89.
SpillaneJ. P.PariseL. M.ShererJ. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 586-619.
90.
WalkerE. M. (2002). The politics of school-based management: Understanding the process of devolving authority in urban school districts. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(33). doi:10.14507/epaa.v10n33.2002
91.
WeickK. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
92.
WildavskyA. (1996). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
93.
XiaJ.ShenJ. (2018). Investigating the effects of the teacher-principal’s decision-making power relationship: A novel slope-as-predictor approach. Presented at the 32nd Annual UCEA Convention, Houston.
94.
XiaJ.ShenJ. (2019). The principal-teacher’s power relationship revisited: A national study based on the 2011-12 SASS data. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1586962
95.
XiaJ.ShenJ.SunJ. (2018). Using teacher influence to predict principal influence. Presented at the2018 AERA Annual Meeting, New York.
96.
ZimmermanD. W. (1997). A note on the interpretation of the paired-samples t test. teacher’s corner. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 349-360.
