This article presents a mixed-method study utilizing teacher ratings of principal mindfulness from 149 public schools in Texas and follow-up qualitative data analysis through semi-structured interviews conducted with the top 10 percent of principals identified as mindful. This research is based on the theoretical framework of mindfulness as established by Langer, refined by Weick and Sutcliff and applied to school settings by Hoy. For the quantitative methodology, OLS regression analyses were employed to measure the relative effect of principal influence on student achievement. The results of these analyses indicate that principal mindfulness made a statistically significant independent contribution to the variance in student achievement. For the qualitative interview data, a grounded theory approach was used to develop a conceptual framework for how mindful principals do their work. Three themes emerged endemically from these interviews, the results of which are presented in a concept map at the end of this article.
BassB (1985) Leadership And Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.
2.
CorbinJStraussA (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology13(1): 3.
3.
DemingWE (1993) The New Economics: For Industry, Government, Education. MIT-CAES.
4.
DufourRDufourREakerRKarhanekG (2004) Whatever It Takes: How Professional Learning Communities Respond When Kids Don’t Learn. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
5.
EdmondsR (1979) Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership37: 15–27.
6.
FullerEYoungMShohoA (2010) Assistant principal and principal attrition. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual convention, 1 May 2010.
7.
GilovichT (1991) How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility Of Human Reason In Everyday Life. New York: Free Press.
8.
GoddardRSalloumSBerebitskyD (2009) Trust as a mediator of the relationships between: poverty, racial composition, and academic achievement evidence from Michigan's public elementary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly45(2): 292–311.
9.
HallingerP (1992) Changing norms of principal leadership in the United States. Journal of Educational Administration30: 35–48.
10.
HallingerPHeckRH (1998) Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement9(2): 157–191.
11.
HessFGiftT (2009) School turnarounds: resisting the hype, giving them hope (electronic resource). Educational Outlook. Available at: http://www.frederickhess.org/5143/school-turnarounds (accessed 10 April 2011).
12.
HoyWK (2003) An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures: some theoretical, research and practical considerations. Journal of Educational Administration41(1): 87–108.
13.
HoyWKMiskelCG (2008) Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
14.
HoyWKSweetlandSR (2001) Designing better schools; the meaning and measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly37(3): 296–321.
15.
HoyWKTarterCJ (2008) Administrators Solving the Problems of Practice. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
16.
HoyWKGageCQTarterCJ (2004) Theoretical and empirical foundations of mindful school structure. In: Wayne KHoy,CecilMiskel (eds) Educational Organization, Policy and Reforms: Research and Measurement. 305–335.
17.
HoyWKGageQTarterCJ (2006) School mindfulness and faculty trust: necessary conditions for each other. Educational Administration Quarterly4: 236–255.
18.
HoyWKSmithPASweetlandSR (2002). The development of the organizational climate index for high schools: Its measure and relationship to faculty trust. The High School Journal86: 38–49.
19.
JantziDLeithwoodK (1993) Toward an explanation of variation in teachers’ perceptions of transformational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly32: 512–518.
LangerEJ (1992) Matters of mind: mindfulness/mindlessness in perspective. Consciousness and Cognition1: 289–305.
23.
LeithwoodK (1994) Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly30: 498–518.
24.
LeithwoodKRiehlC (2003) What we know about successful school leadership. American Educational Research Association.
25.
LeithwoodKHarrisAHopkinsD (2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management28(1): 27–42.
26.
LencioniP (2002) The Five Dysfunctions Of A Team: A Leadership Fable. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
27.
LevineDULezotteLW (1990) Unusually Effective Schools: A Review and Analysis of Research and Practice. Madison, WI: The National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development.
28.
LunenburgF (2010) Total quality management applied to schools. Schooling1(1): 1–6.
29.
MaxwellJA (1996) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
ShapiroDLSheppardBHCheraskinL (1992) Business on a hand-shake. Negotiation Journal8: 365–378.
31.
StrikeKA (2008) Small schools: size or community?American Journal of Education114(3): 169–190.
32.
TeddlieCStringfieldS (1993) Schools Make a Difference: Lessons Learned from A Ten Year Study of School Effects. New York: Teachers College Press.
Tschannen-MoranM (2004) Trust matters: Leadership for Successful Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
36.
WeickKESutcliffeKM (2001) Managing The Unexpected. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
37.
WeickKESutcliffeKMObstfeldD (1999) Organizing for high reliability: processes of collective mindfulness. Research in Organizational Behavior21: 81–123.
38.
WerblowJ (2009) The impact of high school size on math achievement and dropout rate. High School Journal92(3): 14–23.
