Perspectives of principal leadership behavior contribute to how principals and other school leaders understand the role of the principal in an era of significant educational reforms. A Q methodology was used with 30 principals, assistant principals, and other educational administrators working in a variety of roles and different types of districts to ascertain how the perceptions of the school leaders align with reform mandates. Data analysis identified one component that accounted for 41% of the variance observed in the ways that these administrators sorted 21 statements about principal leadership behavior. The quantitative analysis was completed as the first stage of the data analysis; the qualitative data were analyzed to triangulate and cross-check the results of the Q sort. The level of agreement among the participants demonstrates a shared understanding of the role of the principal and suggests that principal leadership aligns with the models of site-based management and instructional leadership that support educational reform.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoscardinM. L., McCarthyE., & DelgadoR. (2009). An integrated research-based approach to creating standards for special education leadership. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 22, 68–84.
2.
BredesonP. V., & KoseB. W. (2007). Responding to the education reform agenda: A study of school superintendents’ instructional leadership. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(5). Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/vl5n5/
3.
BrownS. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
4.
BrownS. R., DurningW. D., & SeldonS. C. (1999). Q methodolgy. In MillerG. J., & WhickerM. L. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in public administration (pp. 599–637). New York: Marcel Dekker.
5.
CamburnE., RowanB., & TaylorJ. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 347–373.
6.
CatanoN., & StrongeJ. H. (2006). What are principals expected to do? Congruence between evaluation and performance standards. NASSP Bulletin, 90, 221–237.
7.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: Standards for school leaders.Washington, DC: Author.
8.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008 as adopted by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration.Washington, DC: Author.
9.
Darling-HammondL. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392
10.
DiPaolaM., & Tschannen-MoranM. (2003). The principalship at a crossroads: A study of the conditions and concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87, 43–66.
11.
Education Commission of the States. (2002). No Child Left Behind policy brief.Denver, CO: Author.
12.
GronnP. (2002). Distributed leadership. In LeithwoodK., & HallingerP. (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653–696). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
13.
HallingerP. (2007, August). Research on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership: Retrospect and prospect. Presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research conference, Melbourne, Australia.
HeckR. H., & MarcoulidesG. A. (1993). Principal leadership behaviors and school achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 77(553), 20–28.
16.
LeithwoodK. A., LouisK. S., AndersonS., & WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning.new York: Wallace foundation.
17.
LeithwoodK. A., & PolinM. S. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 8–12.
18.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2007). 2007–08 school and district accountability status and required actions. retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ayp/2007/
19.
Massachusetts Regulations for Educator Licensure and Preparation Program Approval, 603 CMR 7.10 (August 13, 2009).
20.
MilitelloM., & JansonC. (2007). Socially focused, situationally driven practice: a study of distributed leadership among school principals and counselors. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 409–442.
21.
NadeauA., & LeightonM. (1996). The role of leadership in sustaining school reform: Voices from the field.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
22.
O'DonnellR. J., & WhiteG. P. (2005). Within the accountability era: Principals’ instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89, 56–71.
23.
SchmolckP. (2002). PQMethod (Version 2.11) [Computer software]. (Adapted from Qmethod, a mainframe program written by John Atkinson, 1992)
24.
SergiovanniT. J. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
SheppardB. (1996). Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 325–344.
26.
SimonH. A. (1997). Administrative behavior.New York: Free Press.
27.
SpillaneJ. P., HalversonR., & DiamondJ. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: a distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30, 23–28.
StephensonW. (1953). The study of behavior.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
TannerC. K., & StoneC. D. (1998). School improvement policy: Have administrative functions of principals changed in schools where site-based management is practiced?Education Policy Analysis Archives, 6(6). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/573
31.
TogneriW., & AndersonS. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools.Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance. Retrieved December 27, 2009, from http://learningfirst.org/publications/districts/
32.
ValentaA. L., & WiggerU. (1997). Q-methodology: Definition and application in health care informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 4(6), 501–510.
33.
VernezG., KaramR., MarianoL. T., & DeMartiniC. (2006). Evaluating comprehensive school reform models at scale: Focus on implementation. retrieved December 27, 2009, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG546.pdf
34.
WatersT., MarzanoR. J., & McNultyB. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement.Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
