This study explores teachers’ ratings of principal leadership in magnet and nonmagnet elementary schools. The article provides potential explanations for nonmagnet teachers’ ratings of their principals as more effective leaders than their magnet school counterparts. First, more permeable boundaries characteristic of magnet schools may compel magnet principals to allocate additional time to external management. Second, the enrollments and staff sizes in magnet schools are larger; therefore, magnet principals have less time for each individual. Third, nonmagnet schools serve more low SES children and have fewer resources to do so. Confronting these challenges may help explain why nonmagnet teachers rate their principals as more effective. Finally, magnet teachers report greater autonomy and expertise, which may make principal leadership in specific domains extraneous.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BauchP., & GoldringE. (1995). Parent involvement and school responsiveness: Facilitating the home-school connection in schools of choice. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(1), 1–22.
2.
BlankR. (1986, April). Principal leadership in urban high schools: Analysis of variation in leadership characteristics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
3.
BlankR. (1990). Educational effects of magnet schools. In CluneW., & WitteJ. (Eds.), Choice and control in American education, Vol. 2: The practice of choice, decentralization and school restructuring (pp. 77–109). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
4.
BlankR., DentlerR., BaltzellD., & ChabotarK. (1983). Survey of magnet schools: Analyzing a model for quality integrated education.Final report of a national study for the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: James H. Lowry and Associates.
5.
BredesonP. (1989). An analysis of the metaphorical perspectives of school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21(1), 29–50.
6.
BrykA., & DriscollM. (1988). The high school as community: Contextual influences, and consequences for students and teachers.Madison, WI: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools, University of Wisconsin.
7.
BrykA., LeeV., & SmithJ. (1990). High school organization and its effects on teachers and students. In CluneW., and WitteJ. (Eds.), Choice and control in American education, Vol. 1: The theory of choice and control in American education (pp. 135–226). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
8.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1992). School Choice: A special report.Princeton, NJ: Author.
ColemanJ., & HofferT. (1987). Public and private high schools: The impact of communities.New York: Basic Books.
11.
CooksonP. W. (1993, June). School choice and the creation of community. Paper presented at the Theory and practice in school autonomy and choice: Bringing the community and the school back in workshop. Tel Aviv University, Israel.
12.
CrowG. (1991). The principal in schools of choice: Middle manager, entrepreneur, and symbol manager. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
13.
DrathW. H. (1996). Changing our minds about leadership. Issues and Observations, 16(1), 1–4.
14.
DriscollM. E. (1995). Thinking like a fish: The implications of school community for connections between parents and schools. In CooksonP. W., and SchneiderB. (Eds.), Transforming schools (pp. 209–236). New York: Garland.
15.
FinnC. E. (1990). Why we need choice. In BoydW. L., & WalbergH. J. (Eds.), Choice in education: Potential and problems (pp. 3–19). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
16.
FullanM. (1991). The new meaning of educational change.New York: Teachers College Press.
17.
GoldringE., & ShapiraR. (1993). Choice, empowerment, and involvement: What satisfies parents?Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(4), 396–409.
18.
HallingerP., & HausmanC. (1993). The changing role of the principal in a school of choice. In MurphyJ., & HallingerP. (Eds.), Restructuring schooling: Learning from ongoing efforts (pp. 114–142). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
19.
HallingerP., & HeckR. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44.
20.
HallingerP., & HeckR. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191.
21.
HallingerP., & MurphyJ. (1986). The social context of effective schools. American Journal of Education, 94, 328–355.
22.
HausmanC. (2000). Principal role in magnet schools: Transformed or entrenched?Journal of Educational Administration, 38(1), 25–46.
23.
HausmanC., & GoldringE. (2000). School community in different magnet program structures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(1), 80–102.
24.
KerchnerC. (1988). Bureaucratic entrepreneurship: The implications of choice for school administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(4), 381–392.
25.
LeeV. E., & BrykA. (1989). A multilevel model of the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 61, 172–192.
26.
LeeV. E., SmithJ. B., & CiociM. (1993). Teachers and principals: Gender-related perceptions of leadership and power in secondary schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 153–180.
27.
LeithwoodK., BegleyP., & CousinsB. (1990). The nature, causes, and consequences of principals’ practices: An agenda for future research. Journal of Educational Administration, 28(4), 5–31.
28.
MetzM. H. (1986). Different by design: The context and character of three magnet schools.New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
29.
MorganE. M. (1987). Magnet schools: The role of the principal. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, American University, Washington, DC.
PitnerN. J. (1986). Substitutes for principal leader behavior: An exploratory study. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22, 23–42.
32.
PounderD., OgawaR., & AdamsE. (1995). Leadership as an organization-wide phenomena: Its impact on school performance. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(4), 564–588.
33.
RaywidM. (1989). The mounting case for schools of choice. In NathanJ. (Ed.), Public schools by choice: Expanding opportunities for parents, students and educators.St. Paul, MN: Institute for Learning and Teaching.
34.
RossellC. H. (1990). The carrot or the stick for school desegregation policy: Magnet schools or forced busing.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
35.
SmrekarC. (1993). Building community: The influence of school organization and management. Advances in Research and Theories of School Management and Educational Policy, 2, 1–24.
36.
SmrekarC. (1996). The social context of school choice in a magnet school program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
37.
SteelL., & LevineR. (1994). Educational innovation in multiracial contexts: The growth of magnet schools in American education.Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
38.
WohlstetterP., & GriffinN. (1998). Creating and sustaining learning communities: Early lessons from charter schools.Penn Graduate School of Education: Consortium for Policy Research in Education (OP-03).
39.
ZhengH. Y. (1996, April). School contexts, principal characteristics, and instructional leadership effectiveness: A statistical analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
