High School Principals and School Reform: Lessons Learned from a Statewide Study of Project Re:Learning

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to answer a single question: What is the roe of the school principal in providing the leadership needed for the proper exploration and implemenation of Project Re:Learning? A conceptual framework was developed to guide the study. “Principals' strategies” was the centerpiece of the framework being influenced by “external factors” and “community and district factors” and, in turn, influencing “school-related factors” and “classroom-related factors.” The influence of the principal on “success or failure of innovations” was hypothesized to be indirect rather than direct. The study was conducted in four phases, initially included fifteen schools, and involved questionnaires completed by teachers and principals, interviews with teachers and principals, and whole-day shadows of principals. Based on the results of the study six types of school administrators were identified: the absent administrator, the pawn, the pragmatic principal the enthusiastic buffer, the principal as catalyst, and the implementer. Three of these typologies were believed to be consistent with the conceptualization of the principal advocated by the Coalition of Essential Schools: the enthusiastic buffer, the principal as catalyst, and the implementer. A set of generalizations derived from the results completes the study.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st Century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Crow, G. M. , & Peterson, K. D. (1994). In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon.

Cuban, L (1984). School reform by remote control: SB813 in California.Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 213-215.

Cushman, K. (1992). The essential school principal: A changing role in a changing school.Horace, 9(1), 1-4.

Fullan, M. J. (1994). Implementation of innovations. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon.

Fullan, M. J. , & Steigelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). London: Cassel.

Goodlad, J. (Ed.). (1987). The ecology of school renewal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Howe, W. (1994). Leadership in educational administration. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon.

Lander, R. (1994). Management of change and innovation. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon.

10.

Leithwood, K. A. , & Montgomery, D. J. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in program improvement.Review of Educational Research, 52, 309-339.

11.

Lightfoot, S. (1983). The good high school. New York: Basic Books.

12.

Lyons, C. B. (1991). Reading recovery: A viable prevention of learning disability.Reading Horizons, 31, 384-408.

13.

Madden, N. A. , Slavin, R. E. , Karweit, N. L. , Dolan, L. J. , & Wasik, B. A. (1992). Success for all.Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 593-599.

14.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

15.

Schwarz, P. (1992). The absent principal? Connections, 4(1).

16.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.

17.

Sizer, T. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

18.

Sizer, T. (1989). Horace's school: Redesigning the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

19.

Sizer, T. (1992). Strong leadership? Principals and teachers both.Connections, 4(1).

20.

Sponhour, M. (1992, November 19). The State, p. 1.

21.

Timar, T. (1989). The politics of school restructuring.Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 265-275.