This article reports on the findings of a study that examined the principals’ leadership in three private schools and its implications for decentralized public schools. With the increase of charter and privatized managed schools, principals will need to redefine their leadership styles. Since private schools are decentralized, these principals offer another perspective in how to establish a collective vision, create an environment for risk taking, facilitate participants to participate in long-range planning, and build a consensus among school members.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BimberB. (1993). School decentralization: Lessons from the study of bureaucracy.Santa Monica, CA: Rand Publication Series.
2.
BlaseJ. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership: Teachers’ perspective, Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(2): 142–163.
3.
BolmanL. G., & DealT. E. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party's report, Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1): 77–96.
4.
BridgesD., & McLaughlinT. H. (1994). Education and the market place.London: The Falmer Press.
5.
BrykA. S., LeeV. E., & HollandP. B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
CibulkaJ. G. (1989). Rationales for private schools: A commentary. In BoydW. L., and CibulkaJ. G. (Eds.), Private schools and public policy, (pp. 91–104). London: Falmer Press.
7.
ChubbJ. E., & MoeT. M. (1988). No school is an island: Politics, markets and education. In BoydW. L., & KerchnerC. T. (Eds.), The politics of excellence and choice in education, (pp. 131–141). London: Falmer Press.
8.
ChubbJ. E., & MoeT. M. (1992). A lesson in school reform from Great Britain.Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.
9.
ColemanJ., HofferT., & KilgoreS. (1982). High school achievement.New York: Basic Books.
10.
ConradC. (1982). Grounded Theory: An Alternative Approach in Higher Education, The Review of Higher Education, 5(4): 259–269.
11.
DunlapD., & GoldmanP. (1991). Rethinking Power in Schools,”Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(1): 5–29.
12.
GoldmanP., DunlapD. M., & ConleyD. T. (1993). Facilitative power and nonstandard solutions to school site restructuring, Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(1): 69–92.
13.
GraceG. (1995). School leadership: Beyond education management.London: The Falmer Press.
14.
LeithwoodK. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring, Education Administration Quarterly, 30(4): 498–518.
15.
LeithwoodK., JantziD., & DartB. (1993). Toward a multilevel conception of policy implementation processes based on commitment strategies. In BacharachS. B., & OgawaR. T. (Eds.) Advances in Research and Theories of School Management and Educational Policy, (Vol. 1, pp. 241–271). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
16.
MarshC. J. (1990). Managing for Total School Improvement. In ChapmanJ. (Ed.), School-based decision making and management (pp. 147–161). London: Falmer Press, pp. 147–161.
17.
PattersonJ. L. (1995). Upside down leadership: The rules have changed.Amherst, WI: Palmer Publications, Inc.
18.
ReitzugU. C. (1994). A case study of empowering principal behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2): 283–307.
19.
RobertsonP. J., WohlstetterP., and MohrmanA. S. (1995). Generating curriculum and instructional innovations through school-based management, Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(3): 375–404.
20.
SengeP. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.New York: Doubleday.
21.
SergiovanniT. J. (1994). Building community in schools.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
22.
TucciL. (1992). Spinning ivy into gold, St. Louis, 28(3): 38–42.
