I. Hierarchical
Independence and Influence
According to Hoy and
Miskel (1991), principals use hierarchical independence and
influence within the formal structure of the district to give,
various resources for the school. Hoy and Miskel define
hierarchical independence as, "the extent to which administrators
demonstrate their autonomy from superiors" (p. 81). To
illustrate, a principal exerts hierarchical independence from the
superintendent when she decides to implement a major reform or
instructional innovation, relying on her own expertise,
knowledge, and ability to acquire resources rather than relying
on guidance and resources from the superintendent or central
office administrators (Fullan, Anderson, & Newton, 1986;
Leithwood, 1988).
Hoy and Miskel (1991)
describe hierarchical influence as the ability of the principal
to gain positive benefits for the school from the superintendent.
Adapting from the above illustration, hierarchical influence is
used when a principal persuades the superintendent to support a
unique school program or to provide additional resources to the
school
Hierarchical
independence and influence, though important, can be difficult
for a principal to exercise. As middle level a administrator in a
hierarchical organization, a principal simultaneously occupies a
subordinate and superordinate position. Consequently, a principal
must balance often-competing demands and expectations from the
superintendent and teachers. Moreover, while both the
superintendent and teachers value independent and influential
action on the part of the principal, they do so for different
reasons.
For the superintendent,
independence and influence are valued when problems are resolved
at the school level or when external resources are secured with
little encumbrance to the district (Crowson & Morris, 1984).
Independent or influential action that is inconsistent with the
expectations of the superintendent or that creates problems for
central office is viewed with a less sanguine eve. Teachers, on
the other hand, value independent and influential actions when
these actions bring needed resources co the school, are
consistent with the values held by the faculty (Porter &
Lemon, 1988), or buffer the faculty from external demands and
pressures
School
Climate
We propose that
teachers, as prime beneficiaries of a principal's upward exercise
of power, are uniquely positioned to observe the effects of a
principal's use of hierarchical independence and influence. As
teachers observe this dynamic, according to Boyan (1988), their
perceptions of school climate are affected. Although there is
little consensus concerning forces that mold school climate,
variables that have been studied include principal leadership
(Kottcamp, Mulhern, & Hoy, 1987; Purkey & Smith, 1983;
Taylor& Tashakkori, 1995), teacher morale (Pallas, 1988), and
academic emphasis (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). Some researchers
(Halpin, 1966; Hoy, Tarter, & Bliss, 1990) describe school
climate as ranging from open to closed. Schools with an open
climate operate with few rules or regulations while schools with
a closed climate are hampered with restrictive rules and
regulations and close supervision (Hoy et al., 1990).
These studies and others
(e.g., Boyan, 1988) suggest that school climate is a mediating
factor in the academic achievement of students, adding to its
importance as a focus of educational research. As noted, we base
the definitions of our terms on Hoy and Miskel (1991). These
authors defined school climate as the "relatively enduring
quality of the school environment that is experienced by
participants, affects their behavior, and is based on their
collective perceptions of behavior in schools" (Hoy & Miskel,
1991, p. 221).
II.
Limitations
In our study, we
consider teachers' impressions of principals' exercise of
hierarchical independence and influence, and examine the extent
to which these impressions affect teachers' perceptions of school
climate. At this point, it is necessary, to acknowledge some
important limitations of our study. District size plays a role in
shaping the relationship between the principal and
superintendent. In small districts, because there are fewer
levels of administration to separate a superintendent from
principals (Crowson & Morris, 1985), the
principal/superintendent relationship is more direct and
interactions more frequent than in large districts. Large
districts are characterized by many administrative levels between
a principal and the superintendent, creating indirect and often
impersonal communication between the two, thereby muting the
relationship (Crowson & Morris, 1985; Boyan, 1988). In order
to enhance the chances of finding an effect, if there is one, our
study occurred in a small, rural district and is unlikely to
generalize to large or urban districts.
Similarly, elementary
schools, because they are smaller and structurally less complex
than secondary schools, offer a better context for initial
explorations of teachers' perceptions of the
principal/superintendent relationship. Because our study occurred
in at the elementary level, results may not generalize to
secondary schools. Finally with regard to limitations, the
linkage between teachers' perceptions of the
principal/superintendent and their perceptions of school climate
is indirect. Still, we assert that these perceptions are inherent
in the complex reality of schools. Given the impact of school
climate on student achievement, exploring the linkage between
teachers' perceptions of the principal/superintendent
relationship and school climate merits study.
III.
Statement of Problem
The teacher perceived
power vested in principals in the form of independence from and
influence on the superintendent may relate to teachers'
perceptions of school climate as well. Given the lack of
research on these phenomena, we explore the effects of
hierarchical independence and influence on school climate as
perceived by teachers. This case study is an illustration of how
this relationship is played out in practice. Determining how and
why teachers value certain aspects of their principal's
relationship with the superintendent allows knowledge to be
gained about the functioning of schools and how schools can
become more effective.
IV.
Method
Our study uses case
analysis to compare a typical school ~with a positive outlier, a
research design recommended by effective schools researchers
(Teddlie &, Stringfield, 1993). Results reported here are
part of a larger study that took place in a southern state and
investigated the effect of the hierarchical independence and
influence on school climate. For the larger study, sample
districts and schools were selected on that criterion that both
the superintendent and the principals had been in their current
position for at least 3 years. This criterion gave the principals
and their respective superintendent a chance to develop a
relationship before the study data were collected. As noted
above, all participating schools were at the elementary level and
were comprised of grades kindergarten through five.
To gather the data, all
regular education teachers in these schools were asked to
complete two questionnaires. To measure teachers' perceptions of
principal hierarchical independence and influence, the Teacher
Attitude Inventory (Glascock, 1996 [TAI]), was developed. A
panel of six experts was used to analyze possible items for the
Teacher Attitude Inventory (TAI) survey developed. The
experts are two professors in educational administration, one
professor in educational research, two principals, and one
12-year veteran teacher. Each expert was told the purpose of the
TAI survey and what each section is intended to measure.
Modifications and changes were made to items based on the advice
and opinions of these experts.
The Teacher Attitude
Inventory (TAI) includes 14 statements that measure teachers'
perceptions of the principal's level of independence from and
influence with the superintendent. Independence is defined as
"the extent to which administrators demonstrate their autonomy
from superiors as they interact with teachers" (Hoy & Miskel,
1991). This independence from and influence with the
superintendent is measured by a five point Likert scale ranging
from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree", with a response
option of "don't know" included. Scoring is completed by reverse
coding negative questions for independence and influence, and the
summing the seven item scores. Each set of scores is aggregated
to the school level and the average is generated so that there is
one score for each school.
To assess school
climate, teachers completed the Organizational Climate
Description Questionnaire - Revised Elementary (Hoy, Tarter,
& Kottcamp, 1991 [OCDQ-RE]). The OCDQ-RE measures
school climate using two components. One component, principal
behavior is comprised of three dimensions, including directive,
supportive, and restrictive. Hoy et al. (1991) report Cronbach's
alphas of .95 to .80 for these dimensions. The second component
of the OCDQ-RE, teacher behavior, also consists of three
components, disengaged, collegial, and intimate. Cronbach's alpha
for these dimensions range from .90 to .75 (Hoy et al, 1991). For
each dimension in both components, scores fall into one of five
categories ranging from very low through average to yew
high.
The case studies
reported here involve two schools that were selected using
results from both questionnaires. As noted, one school was
typical. In this school, teachers scored nearest the mean on both
questionnaires. The other school, a positive outlier, was chosen
because teachers scored farthest from the mean on both
questionnaires. Serendipitously, both of these schools were
located in the same district, permitting more meaningful
comparisons.
To gather data, both
schools were visited for two days each. During this time, the
principal and a random sample of teachers were interviewed. In
addition, parents and ancillary personnel, such as the school
nurse, were interviewed. A protocol explored the extent to which
the superintendent played a role in the day-to-day life of the
school; beliefs held by faculty and the principal about the
relationship between the principal and superintendent; and the
effect the relationship between the principal and superintendent
had, respectively, on teachers and principal on a typical day. In
addition, information was gathered. The researcher spent time
observing and having casual interactions in the halls, cafeteria,
and on the playground. Interviews were held for half an hour to
an hour with individuals and taped. Classes were observed and
children were engaged in casual conversation. The researcher
kept a running record through tape recordings during all sessions
and observations. Over 200 pages of transcribed notes and
interviews were generated. In presenting the results, pseudonyms
are used to ensure the confidentiality of participating schools
and individuals.
V.
Results
The case analyses
reported below explore the relationship between teachers'
perceptions of principal hierarchical independence and influence
and their perceptions of school climate. Findings for each school
are presented separately, and include the results of the
TAI (teacher perceptions of the principal's hierarchical
independence and influence) and OCDQ-RE (teacher
perceptions of school climate), a brief contextual description of
the school and professional staff, the impressions of the
teachers who were interviewed regarding (a) the principal's
exercise of hierarchical independence and influence and (b) the
school's climate. Our discussion of the results concludes with a
comparison of the two schools in terms of teachers' perceptions
of principal hierarchical independence and influence and their
perceptions of school climate.
District
Description
The two schools are in
the same district as noted, hence, we begin with a description of
the district. The Jackson County school district was once
considered rural and poor, but now has a more exurban flavor and
serves as a bedroom community for a nearby city. Over half of the
population is high school graduates and nearly 10% have college
degrees (U.S. Census Bureau, 1990). Of the 17,000 students who
attend the 8 schools in Jackson County, 94% are European
American, with 6% of the students describing themselves as
African American or other.
Greenbriar Elementary
(typical school)
The TAI score is
18.111 indicating that teachers have a neutral to positive
perception of the principal/superintendent relationship. The
Greenbriar Elementary scores in the average, low, and very low
categories on the principal dimensions of supportive (495.258),
directive (429.906) and restrictive (397.032) of the
OCDQ. Scores are high in the collegial (586.357), very
high in the intimate (609.299), and average in the disengaged
(497.619) dimensions. These scores indicate a school in which
teachers perceive moderate levels of principal positive or
negative behaviors that impact their work life, teachers have
good rapport with each other but teachers are somewhat disengaged
from the workplace. This school is between the engaged and
disengaged climates described in the typology of climate
developed by Hoy, Tarter, and Kottcamp (1991). However, while
teachers reported good rapport among themselves, on the typology
developed by Hoy et al. (1991), they tended toward disengagement
from the workplace.
As mentioned previously,
additional data were collected through interviews. At Greenbriar,
interviews were conducted with the principal, 3 teachers, a
student teacher, 3 parent aides, and the school nurse. As will be
seen, these participants were uniformly positive about the
principal.
The school itself serves
children from the working class community that it is located.
Brickwork on the 30-year old building has faded to a grayish red
color and the window trim is dull with age. Once inside the
building, an orientation toward neatness and cleanliness is
evident. Splashes of color from student artwork adorning
classroom doors brighten the faded pastels of the hallways.
Classrooms are clean, though many are cluttered because there is
not enough room to hold all the instructional materials, books,
art supplies, and maps. One teacher explained, " With so many
children, we have no room for instructional materials." The
principal's office is small but professional in appearance. Walls
display many citations and awards earned by the school. Like the
classrooms, the principal's desk is cluttered as if too many
things require her attention. In the cramped outer office, where
the secretary sits, an up-to-date computer stands out against the
other office equipment which old and worn.
Most of the 450 children
who attend Greenbriar walk to school. School demographics reflect
the district, with 9'4% of the students describing themselves as
white, 6% as black, and 35% as eligible for free-or-reduced-price
lunch. According to the Food and Nutrition Bureau of the state
Department of Education (1995), Greenbriar is a low poverty
school. As might be expected given the demographics, the students
do reasonably well on standardized tests, performing above the
district, state, and national median percentile for fourth
graders on the California Achievement Test.
Also consistent with the
demographics, children were well behaved and quietly involved
themselves in their assignments. In one of the few instances when
disciplinary action was required, two children were sent to stand
in the hallway just outside the classroom door. The teacher of
the offending students explained they had been removed for
talking out of turn, noting, "Children are not allowed to disrupt
classroom activities."
There appeared to be a
genuine friendship among the teachers and between the faculty and
the principal. One teacher noted that, "Many of the teachers and
the principal play Keno once a week, and this year, as soon as
school ends, several of the teachers and the principal are going
on vacation together."
In addition, Greenbriar
enjoyed strong parental support and many parent volunteers.
During the 2 days of observation, 20 parents were observed
assisting teachers in the classroom or with clerical chores, such
as duplicating papers. These parents sincerely liked the teachers
and the principal, and felt the school operated well. One
commented, "The principal maintains discipline and the children
know and follow the rules so this school runs really
well."
Curiously, of all the
people interviewed, the school nurse was the only one who
mentioned the children's intellectual growth without prompting
from the interviewer, noting "Itis very important
to give the children a chance to learn as much as possible."
Neither the teachers nor the parent aides offered such
statements. Moreover, when asked directly about the students'
learning, teachers and parents unanimously responded "Discipline
is very strict in the school and the principal does not allow
children to interrupt the learning of others." The recurring
theme that surfaced during the interviews was that discipline was
the most important objective of the school. Asked if discipline
was important of itself or as a prerequisite for learning, one
teacher said "Discipline is just as important as
knowledge."
The principal, Ms. Cook,
like the faculty, is a white female. Now in her late fifties, Ms.
Cook has been an educator in the district for over 20 years, the
last 4 of which have been as principal at Greenbriar. She is
professional in dress and demeanor with an air of strength about
her; yet, she smiles easily. Ms. Cook was very open to questions
and had no hesitancy in offering opinions about teachers,
children, the school, parents, or the district staff. She was
quite proud of the staff' rapport and mentioned the Keno nights
and the upcoming vacation as evidence. This network of friendship
was perhaps more important because of the contrast it offered to
the prior principal. The prior principal was a male who the
teachers viewed as authoritarian and unfriendly. Teachers seemed
to appreciate that Ms. Cook went out of her way to establish good
communication with them and to include them in group activities.
Her more cordial demeanor did not hinder school operations,
however. It was mentioned the children's intellectual growth
without prompting from the interviewer, noting that "It is very
important to give the children a chance to learn as much as
possible.' Neither the teachers nor the parent aides offered such
statements. Moreover, when asked directly about the students'
learning, teachers and parents unanimously responded "Discipline
is very strict in the school and tile principal does not allow
children to interrupt the learning of others." The recurring
theme that surfaced during the interviews was that discipline was
the most important objective of the school. Asked if discipline
was important of itself or as a prerequisite for learning, one
teacher said, "Discipline is just as important as
knowledge."
As suggested above, Ms.
Cook did not mention students' academic or social performance
until ask specifically. Even then, she did not speak of test
scores, though it will be remembered that the schools scored
above the state and district average median percentile, and when
pressed about student behavior, Ms. Cook stated firmly that
children "are here to learn. No child can interfere with the
learning others." It was as if the children were not the purpose
of the school, but a separate entity, not integral to the
functioning of the school.
The principal's view of
the superintendent was fairly distant. She did not indicate any
personal relationship or friendliness, but there was a sense of
professional respect and loyalty. Ms. Cook is one of the district
personnel who are aligned with the superintendent, as opposed to
the more conservative members of the school board. According to
Ms. Cook, she supported the superintendent because he established
good procedures, tried to respond to individual school needs, and
addressed problems quietly.
Ms. Cook's description
of her relationship with the superintendent indicated limited
interaction between them that might suggest a low level of
principal influence with the superintendent. That type of
interaction does not appear to exist between this principal and
the superintendent. At the same time, Ms. Cook did not any
negative feelings about
As to disciplinary
actions, very little is observed. One incident occurred while
the researcher was in the main/secretary's office. A child was
sent to the office during the observation period for disciplinary
reasons. The secretary seemed very familiar with the student,
asking him "Why are you here this time? Sit down and the
principal will see you when she has the time." At another point,
two children were observed standing in the hallway, next to a
classroom door. They had been removed from their classrooms for
talking out of turn. As one teacher explained, "Children are not
allowed to disrupt classroom activities."
School
Climate.
The school was visited
in the late spring of the year. End of the year activities, such
as special topics in classes where all curriculum needs have been
met, assemblies, and parties have begun, yet there is a quiet,
orderly feel to the school. Children are following an
established routine, both as to activities and expected
behavior. Before the first bell of the day, they are cheerful,
talkative, and happy. Recess is physically active (running,
climbing, and jumping) with the normal yelling, laughing, and
small upsets that occur with children at play. End of the day
activities are boisterous as the children become excited about
going home.
The teachers appear
calm, their demeanor, speech and body language indicate quiet
confidence in the overall condition of the school. Those
teachers interviewed stated that everything is in order and on
schedule because the children cause no extreme difficulties, the
curriculum is being completed on time and the paper work is
complete.
Teachers are asked how
they feel when contemplating the start of the day. One said,
"Everything runs smoothly here, the children know the rules."
Every teacher response given, whether about activities, climate
or environment, expresses pleasure at the level of discipline in
the school. It was the only response given related to the
children. There was no bragging about the children's test
scores, awards, and innovations in the classroom or a specific
child who has excelled in some way. Teachers were also asked
what they consider a good day at school. One stated that, "Any
day is good when the children are quiet and everyone is in a good
mood."
The parent aides
indicate that they are pleased with the school. Discipline is
maintained, their efforts as aides are appreciated and even the
one teacher who is demanding is manageable. The school is
functioning quietly.
As to whether the
superintendent is active in the day-to-day operations of the
school, the teachers responded that he is not considered an
active part of the school. This situation indicates that the
superintendent is not a close controller of the principal's
activities, as far as the teachers are aware. Teachers did not
offer any information about the principal's influence with
the superintendent affecting the day-to-day operations of the
school either. No connections appeared evident to the teachers
interviewed that the principal/superintendent relationship played
a role in shaping the climate of the school.
When interacting among
themselves, the children laugh and talk with smiling faces and
positive body language. In the classroom, their faces are mostly
neutral and their bodies are slumped in their desks. No teacher
was observed making classroom presentations with an excited voice
or body language. The teachers appeared to be reciting lessons.
There appears to be a missing connection between teachers and
children, especially during class time.
Perceived
Principal/Superintendent Relationship.
Teachers at GREENBRIAR
base their opinions of the principal's relationship with the
superintendent on two factors: resources provided to the school
and the principal's support for the superintendent over the
school board's conservative members. All teachers interviewed
are aware of the discord between the superintendent and the
board; they are aware also of the principal's loyalty to the
superintendent. The principal has made her position clear in a
staff meeting.
The teachers feel that
the school is receiving adequate resources, yet they are aware of
the district's financial difficulties. While the teachers want
more supplies and desire more computer equipment, they seem
satisfied that all that could be done is being done. The
teachers state that the principal is doing her best in trying to
get more from the superintendent, yet seem unaware of how she is
doing this task. As to the superintendent's role in the school,
it is viewed as distant at best, if not non-existent. Most
teachers could not remember if the superintendent had come to the
school during the year. One teacher commented that, "He has more
important things to do than come see us."
The principal's
influence on the superintendent is viewed as difficult to
ascertain by teachers. Teachers stated that, "Getting supplies
are the only way we can tell if the principal can move the
superintendent." Teachers do not perceive influence in any
concrete fashion as a form of power on the part of the
principal. The ability of the principal to influence the
superintendent is seen as too invisible to teachers.
The concept of
independence is easier for the teachers to discuss. The teachers
interviewed believe that the principal is independent of the
superintendent and makes most decisions herself. The teachers
believe that the principal follows district guidelines and does
not give the superintendent reasons to closely monitor the school
or the principal. The teachers' point agrees with the
research (Crowson & Morris, 1985) that describes principal
strategies for maintaining or obtaining independence from the
central office. Crowson and Morris (1985) describe principals
being aware that the superintendent and central office will give
greater latitude to principals who do not make trouble for the
central office. This tacit understanding between principals and
the central office is part of the informal method used to control
district life.
Summary.
Greenbriar is an
elementary school in a poor district, which has financial
problems and leadership tensions as well. While there is a
general awareness of the leadership tension, the awareness does
not appear to cause great stress in the teachers or the school in
general. The teachers appear to be able to isolate themselves
from the district level tensions.
The school functions in
a traditional manner, with discipline being the main objective of
teachers, parents and principal. There is consensus among the
adults that the school runs well. The teachers' comments
appear to show a concentration on creating a pleasant work
environment for themselves. The present principal has not been
in place for a lengthy tenure so it would be of interest to
follow this school and see if any changes develop which might
demonstrate any awakening to potential problems.
Teachers appear to value
their principal for sharing the same outlook on the mission of
the school that is discipline above all else. The teachers also
value personal friendships with the principal. There does not
appear to be any overt awareness on the part of teachers about
the principal/superintendent relationship.
Teachers do not indicate
any belief that the principal is influential with the
superintendent, rather the teachers appear to have no perceptions
about that aspect of the relationship. The only indication that
even hints at influence is that teachers feel an adequate amount
of resources are available for the school. Independence is also
rather vague for these teachers but somewhat stronger than
influence. The teachers appear to believe that because there is
no evidence of interference in school activities by the
superintendent, the principal must be independent of the
superintendent to a high degree. As with influence, the teachers
show only vague interest or awareness in the
principal/superintendent relationship. Rather, teachers appear
to be centered on the relationships among themselves and with the
principal only. The possibility of independence and influence
being interwoven is not apparent.
Waterfall Elementary
(high scoring school)
The TAI score is
23.737 indicating that the teachers have a positive perception of
the principal/superintendent relationship On theOCDQ, the
high elementary school Waterfall scores are in the very high
category on the principal dimension of supportive (699.814),
average in the directive dimension (510.938), and very low in the
restrictive dimension (306.581). Scores are very high in the
collegial (673.457) and intimate (672.570) dimensions and very
low in the disengaged (355.079) dimension. This indicates a
school in which teachers perceive high levels of principal
positive behaviors and low levels of negative behavior which
impacts teacher work life; teachers have good rapport with each
other and are actively engaged in their work.
Waterfall is an
elementary school, serving grades K-5 plus special education
classes. There are 383 children and 26 faculty members. All the
children are white as are the teachers (AFSR, 1994).
Waterfall has 27.5% of their classes in the 1-20 range and the
rest of the classes in the 21-26 range. Student attendance (96%)
is also better than the district average (95.45%).
CRT results show the
children to be scoring higher than the district and state
average. Waterfall places fourth out of 18 district elementary
schools on the CRT for grade three; and places fifth out of 18
district elementary schools on the CRT for grade five. CAT
results for the fourth grade place fourth in the district in
overall performance and well above the district, the state, and
the national median percentile (PPDCR, 1994).
Waterfall is located in
the rural, southern part of the district. The school is located
in a curve of a secondary country road. Across the road from the
school is a small hardware store. There are no neighborhoods,
houses or commercial entities (other than the one mentioned)
within half of a mile of the school. This part of the district
consists of citizens who are considered to be poorer than the
people in the northern two thirds of the district. Most of the
population in the southern third is considered
transient.
Waterfall is over thirty
years old., simple in design and consists of two faded red brick
buildings and a modular cafeteria. Since the building is on a
curve of a secondary, rural road that has been the sight of
several accidents, attempts have been made to reinforce the chain
link fence surrounding the property. The front drive where buses
and cars dropped off children has a courtyard appeal with three
large trees shadowing the pavement and the front of the
buildings. Artwork dots the classroom windowpanes.
The interior of the
school is spotless. The janitor starts polishing the floor as
soon as the children begin the first class. Children's artwork
is arranged beside the classroom doors and the colors of the
walls are pastel and cool to the eye. The school is well lit and
not cluttered with boxes, supplies or equipment. The cafeteria
is spotless with the chairs and tables wiped clean and ready for
children. There is new equipment purchased recently visible in
the kitchen area.
The classrooms have neat
cupboards to store supplies and there appears to be plenty of
space for the children to move comfortably. The desks are widely
spaced and there appears to be plenty of room the children to
move around comfortably. The building is relatively old but
inside the classrooms the age does not seem apparent. Instead
the materials and furniture appear sturdy, up to date and
useful.
The children are
transported to school by bus and car. The children are from
agricultural and working class families with incomes averaging
below $30,000 (U.S. Census Bureau). Most of the children are
dressed in clean but faded clothes with some of the clothes being
too big or small. Thirty-four percent of the children qualified
for the Breakfast program (Food and Nutrition Bureau, Louisiana
Department of Education) putting Waterfall in the moderately poor
category of schools. It should be noted that although there is a
category break between the two schools, only one percentage point
separates the schools in the measure of poverty.
Morning activities are
boisterous (laughing and socializing loudly) and there are many
interactions among teachers and children. These interactions
include socializing and movement around the hallways, asking
questions of teachers, receiving reassurance from teachers as to
the day's activity. The children are observed quietly working in
classes, helping each other and asking questions of their
teachers. The children have smiles and positive body language
such as sitting up straight, leaning forward and actively seeking
inclusion by raising their hands.
All 26 teachers are
white females who are local residents except for four from a
nearby city who drive in each day. Thirty-five percent of the
teachers hold at least a Master's degree and one holds a Ph.D.
This percentage places the school above the district average but
below the state average (PPDCR, 1994). The principal
strongly encourages, both verbally and with financial support,
those teachers who wish to pursue professional development
activities. Teachers are taking advantage of these
opportunities.
Two-day visit, five teachers are interviewed. Two themes emerge
in these discussions. One theme is that children are the first
priority of teachers and the principal. Each teacher interviewed
mentioned the children, learning and the social needs of the
children as their main concern and interest. The second theme is
the teachers' enthusiasm for working with children. The
teachers are enthusiastic about the children, future professional
development, the principal's role in the school and each other.
One teacher, Teacher A, who moved to the school from a large,
urban school district in Texas, is most enthusiastic. Teacher A
readily shared her ideas about the children, the teachers and the
principal. Teacher A feels the school functions well because
"the principal's personality and friendliness directly influence
the attitudes of both teachers and children."
Another interviewee, a
third grade teacher, Teacher B, expressed her concerns about the
children, stating, "These children often come from broken homes
and many times they don't know where they will be sleeping that
night. This school is their only stability." Teacher B is most
concerned about the children as people and feels the atmosphere
of the school helps these children cope with the stress they have
at home. Teacher B stated that "children need a nurturing
presence in their lives and unfortunately we are the only ones
who give it to them sometimes".
A kindergarten teacher
stated that the principal's willingness to approach the
superintendent about new techniques for "hands on manipulatives"
has improved the learning experience of her students. This
kindergarten teacher feels that the principal has brought many
new ideas to the school during the five years she has been there
and also appreciates the principal's continued support for
workshops and seminars. "The workshops are very important and
when we go out of town for one, we try to save the money for
travel so we can spend it on supplies for the children," she
explained.
The principal is a white
female in her late forties or early fifties. The principal had
been a teacher in the district for almost twenty years before
moving to WATERFALL three years previously. She is very open and
friendly, offering to assist the researcher in any possible
way. No visible sign of stress are evident in the teachers at
these interruptions. The teachers act as if the interruption
were a normal occurrence. The teachers have been prepared for
the arrival of the researcher. The principal has given all the
staff nametags, telling the researcher it will make the process
friendlier.
The principal expressed
pride about the school in three ways. First, the children are
cared for both emotionally and physically and a good learning
environment is provided for them. Second, the principal is proud
of her teachers because they are willing to improve their
professional skills and are actively pursuing further educational
opportunities. The principal stated "I try to provide funds for
any teacher who wants to attend workshops that improve their
teaching and bring new techniques to the classroom." Third, the
principal is impressed by the community dedication to the
school. An example of that dedication is the group of five women
who run the library for the school. Not one of the five women
has a child in the school, but they want to perform this service
for their community. The principal stated "This community
ownership of the school rubs off on the attitude of teachers and
students alike."
The principal is also
proud of the instructional choices made by the school staff. In
the previous year, the principal offered the teachers a choice of
either a librarian or physical education teacher for a new staff
position. The teachers decided that the five women running the
library performed well so they chose the physical education
teacher. Two things are significant about this event. First,
the principal did not make the choice, she allowed the teachers
to make the choice. Second, the reason for the physical
education choice was predicated on the rather poor physical
condition and coordination of many of the children. In other
words, the teachers make choices based on the immediate needs of
the children. As the principal described it, "Teachers in this
school care deeply for the children's well being, both mental and
physical."
This principal has a
professional and personal relationship with the superintendent.
She taught his children and knows the superintendent as a
parent. The principal is very active in the district, serving as
president of the district principal's association and working
closely with the central office to find resources for her
school. The principal said, "I bother them to death and they
give me some of what I want just to get rid of me."
School
Climate
The school was visited
in the spring of the year. The hallways are quiet and everyone,
teachers and children alike, are busily engaged in learning
activities. No discipline problems are noticed. A general
atmosphere of cooperation exists.
When teachers were asked
how they approach each day, one responded that, "coming to school
is fun, I really get excited about seeing the children." All the
comments were positive. The teachers feel relaxed and
comfortable with their school. When asked what a good day at
school is like, teachers offer smiles and say "A good day is when
everyone learns." "When the children come to school and can
learn because they are not hungry and home was quiet the night
before." "When there is laughter and we get that a lot
here."
One teacher offered her
curriculum choices as an example of how the principal allows
creativity in the classroom. At the end of the spring term, this
teacher works with the children on a crafts approach to Louisiana
culture. "I have the children make different types of maps using
beans native to the state for materials. I bring in Cajun
storytellers, singers, and even a politician or two to speak with
the children." Her classroom hums along and buzzes with
activities. The teacher moves from one group of children to
another, offering comments and answering questions. As she tells
the story, she smiles and her eyes twinkles, "The children can
laugh, talk, and learn all at the same time."
WATERFALL teachers hold
the same views as GREENBRIAR teachers about the superintendent.
The teachers really only perceive the superintendent through the
principal. The principal is perceived as funneling the
superintendent input to the school and because the teachers feel
supported in their efforts, the superintendent is perceived as
having an indirectly positive effect on the school. The
principal is perceived by the teachers as having a good
relationship with the superintendent, both formal and informal.
The formal relationship is demonstrated through the
principal's high profile with the central office and her
ability to receive what the teachers perceive as special
attention for the school. The teachers believe that this
situation is another demonstration of the positive nature of
their school.
Three themes emerge
about climate based on observations and interviews. First,
children are the focus of school activities and the principal and
teachers work to give the school a conducive learning
atmosphere. Second, the principal succeeds in building an air of
professional energy about teacher growth because growth is viewed
as important to enhance the abilities of teachers. Third, the
principal creates an aura of efficiency and effectiveness by
providing resources for the children and teachers. The teachers
perceive their principal as having positive influence with the
superintendent which has proven beneficial for their school by
providing resources, including funds for professional growth and
classroom needs such as the computer lab. The teachers also
believe that positive results have grown from the
principal's ability to act independently of the
superintendent. This independence has been displayed by the
principal being allowed to incorporate new curriculum designs in
the classroom that are not necessarily in line with district
policy. The teachers believe that the principal was able to
accomplish this task because the superintendent gave her greater
independence because of the superintendent's trust in the
principal's abilities.
Perceived
Principal/Superintendent Relationship
Teacher responses at
WATERFALL demonstrate only vague awareness of the principal's
relationship with the superintendent. The teachers know of the
principal's previous history with the superintendent and that she
is able to speak with the superintendent more often than would be
generally expected. Teachers also know how hard the principal
works to gain resources from the central office. Unlike
GREENBRIAR teachers, these teachers do not mention the antagonism
between the school board and the superintendent. Either it is
removed from their immediate focus or the teachers do not think
it appropriate for discussion.
Teachers explain that
their school is receiving more resources than other schools in
the district because of the efforts of the principal. One
stated, "The principal is constantly thinking of new ways to move
the superintendent toward new curriculum and innovative
programs." A kindergarten teacher is particularly vocal on this
issue. She said, "Without the principal's support I would never
have gone to the workshops and learned about new ways to
stimulate my slow learner." As stated in relationship to
climate, the teachers feel that the principal is able to have
great influence with the superintendent. The principal is also
able to act independently because the superintendent trusts her
judgment. For example, the principal is allowed to modify
curriculum in the school rather than strictly follow district
policy, as mention in the climate section.
As to a role for the
superintendent in the school, the teachers do not see it as
direct. His role, as explained by one teacher, "is to manage
finances, talk to the board and provide the schools what they
need." The superintendent's role is viewed as being
indirect and funneled through the principal. The principal is
the link between the school and the outside world. As with
GREENBRIAR teachers, WATERFALL teachers are vague about many
aspects of the principal/superintendent relationship.
However, WATERFALL
teachers appear to view their principal as being very influential
with the superintendent. The personal nature of the relationship
is given as one reason for this success (Hart, 1993). WATERFALL
teachers appear to be aware of and value the principal's
hierarchical independence and influence. The teachers believe
that the principal's ability to act independently is a sign
of influence with the superintendent. The principal's
independence is valued as a resource by the WATERFALL
teachers.
Summary
WATERFALL functions in a
participative type of administration. The WATERFALL principal
gives the teachers a great deal of autonomy and allows teachers
to participate in school wide decisions. There is consensus
among the WATERFALL teachers that the school is working well.
One teacher said, "Things run smoothly here and the children are
learning." Based on interviews, there is a united goal for
WATERFALL and that goal is to help the children learn. Attaining
this goal is being accomplished in three ways: teachers and the
principal work to create a positive learning environment for the
children; teachers are being encouraged to grow professionally
for their personal benefit and the benefit of the children; and
resources are found by the principal to enhance the learning
environment.
This much can be deduced
from the teachers remarks, the principal proves to be influential
by providing resources for the benefit of the school. The
principal is also able to act independently about such matters as
curriculum. The principal is able to give the teachers latitude
to try new curriculum approaches. The teachers view this as
independence on the part of the principal as beneficial to the
school. From the teachers' viewpoint both hierarchical
independence and influence are perceived within the
principal/superintendent relationship.
Comparison of
Greenbriar and Waterfall Related to Principal/Superintendent
Relationship and School Climate as Perceived by the
Teachers
When comparing schools,
it is important to ask the same types of questions and look for
the same types of situations and information. True comparisons
can then be made. Nuances and specific differences are
discovered and play an important role. While no attempt was made
to choose schools in the same district, the situation occurred
and allowed the researcher to make more in depth comparisons
since the schools share the same superintendent. There are
differences in the OCDQ dimension and TAI scores
(see Table 1) that offer a beginning point for a discussion of
the two schools. The qualitative section on the present research
offers greater insight into the differences recognized by
theOCDQ and the TAI.
Table 1
Case
Studies: Comparison of OCDQ and TAI Scores,
Demographic Information, and Academic Tests Results
Between the
Greenbriar and Waterfall Elementary Schools
|
Item
|
Greenbriar
|
Waterfall
|
|
OCDQ dimension scores
|
|
|
|
Supportive
|
495.3
|
699.8
|
|
Directive
|
429.9
|
510.9
|
|
Restrictive
|
397.0
|
306.6
|
|
Collegial
|
586.4
|
673.5
|
|
Intimate
|
609.3
|
672.6
|
|
Disengaged
|
497.6
|
355.1
|
|
TAI
|
18.1
|
23.7
|
|
Student
Population
|
450
|
383
|
|
Faculty Size
|
32
|
26
|
|
Student
Attendance
|
95.73
|
96%
|
|
Suspensions
|
4.43%
|
.69%
|
|
CRT-Grade 3
(Language/Mathematics)
|
96/97
|
98/100
|
|
CRT Scores-Grade
5
(Language/Mathematics)
|
84/91
|
94/98
|
|
CAT Scores-Grade
4
Median
Percentile
|
69.5
|
72.7
|
Principal
Principals at the two
schools differ in many ways. The two most important deal with
the mission of the school and norms for the professional level of
teachers. At GREENBRIAR, the mission is to maintain a quiet,
well-disciplined student body that does not disrupt the teachers'
work environment. The principal said, "No child is allowed to
disrupt class." While at WATERFALL, the mission is to provide a
nurturing learning environment for the children. This difference
between the two principals' results in a teacher centered
environment at GREENBRIAR and a child-centered environment at
WATERFALL.
The second difference
deals with the professional development of teachers. The
principal or teachers at GREENBRIAR did not mention professional
development and when asked, the principal replied, "the school
year is too busy for the teachers already so I leave that
decision up to individual teachers". At WATERFALL, the principal
finds seminars, workshops and other opportunities for the
teachers to grow professionally and publicizes these events to
her teachers. The WATERFALL principal actively recruits teachers
to attend the events and finds incentives, both financial
(district and private) and emotional, to entice the
teachers.
Another difference is
worth noting. The WATERFALL principal has good rapport with the
superintendent that appears to give her greater access and a
greater willingness to interact with the central office for
obtaining resources. This personal relationship between the
principal and the superintendent appears to be a significant
contributor to the principal's success in obtaining
resources.
School
Climate
In both schools, the
teachers state that they are satisfied with the psychological
feel of their school, yet there are telling differences.
GREENBRIAR teachers appear satisfied with the status quo while
WATERFALL teachers are eager to use new ideas and approaches to
education. GREENBRIAR appears to be ruled by a need for
discipline while WATERFALL appears to be ruled by the children's
needs. It is as if GREENBRIAR principal, teachers and parents
view the children only in terms of how the children affect the
adults in the school. On the other hand, WATERFALL appears to be
concerned with the children's needs before any others. At
WATERFALL discipline is one of many tools helping to create a
good learning environment for the children. Resources, new
ideas, innovations in curriculum choices and nurturing of the
whole child are just as important tools.
Perceived
Principal/Superintendent Relationship
Neither GREENBRIAR nor
WATERFALL teachers state any knowledge about the principal/
superintendent relationship beyond the principal's ability to
garner resources for their school and act independently.
GREENBRIAR teachers are aware of their principal's support for
the superintendent over the school board but appear unaffected by
the situation. WATERFALL teachers are aware of their principal's
personal relationship with the superintendent and value that
relationship in terms of influence (resource allocations) and
independence (curriculum changes).
This finding moves in
concert with those items on the TAI that deal with
influence as the principal's ability to gather resources
for the benefit the school. At the same time, the WATERFALL
principal demonstrates independence in decision making about
curriculum materials and new instructional approaches. WATERFALL
teachers perceive both hierarchical independence and influence
together.
VI.
Conclusion
One theme emerges from
these two case studies. GREENBRIAR and WATERFALL staffs view the
missions of their school differently. At GREENBRIAR, the staff
expresses their mission as a concern for their work environment
and that the school maintains "good discipline." The mission at
WATERFALL is to provide a good learning environment for the
children. At GREENBRIAR learning is secondary to discipline and
at WATERFALL learning is the number one priority. Climate is
perceived differently because of the GREENBRIAR teachers differ
in what they value from the WATERFALL teachers. The WATERFALL
teachers value a climate that is conducive to learning and
nurturing children; GREENBRIAR teachers value a climate that is
conducive to a smooth working situation for them.
Specific to the present
study, indications of hierarchical independence and influence are
very different at the two schools. At GREENBRIAR, teachers
appear to be unaware of any direct relationship between their
principal and the superintendent, other than the formal,
organizational relationship. GREENBRIAR teachers do not voice
any awareness of principal influence with the superintendent,
other than receiving necessary resources at an adequate level.
The principal at GREENBRIAR is considered to be in charge of the
school and the superintendent is not seen as an interruptive
force that indicates some independence on the part of the
principal. That independence is not overtly displayed though;
rather the teachers almost view the school as an island that is
semi-detached from the rest of the world. The display of
independence is an almost passive, caused more by circumstances
than by action.
The climate of
GREENBRIAR is good for teachers and principals, in their view.
But that view is very narrow, as if the teachers and principal
are wearing blinders. The teachers and principal do not consider
the children in their scope of understanding what their school
is. If the teachers are happy in their personal relationships
with each other and the principal, then all must be well,
according to the teachers. This finding places the
teachers' perceptions of the principal/superintendent
relationship and organizational climate in perspective. The
principal/superintendent relationship and climate, when viewed in
isolation, offer evidence about their possible connection. These
two elements are not the only elements needed to form a good
learning environment for children. Bossert (1982) and Duckworth
(1984) both place the principal and climate in mediating
positions, not major causality positions for student
learning.
The missing component is
the children. This development showcases the limitations of
research that does not include the perceptions of all
organizational groups. By leaving the children out, the research
is limited in the ability to fully understand the true nature of
the school climate. The teachers do believe that the principal
directly affects the climate of their school. This is
demonstrated through the comments about smooth operations and
lack of problems with discipline at the school. The problem is
not so much that the climate is disengaged or closed, rather the
problems is at the mission level of organizations. These
teachers and the principal are not motivated by children's
needs, rather they are motivated by personal needs and there is
no apparent dissatisfaction with that situation.
As to connections
between hierarchical independence and influence and climate, the
GREENBRIAR teachers appear to value the principal's
independence and link it to the smooth running of the school.
The smooth running appears is the GREENBRIAR teachers'
perception of their school climate. The GREENBRIAR teachers are
happy in their workplace and GREENBRIAR teachers have positive
feelings about their school climate. This finding does not agree
with the results of the quantitative study.
WATERFALL is a very
different situation. WATERFALL teachers view their
principal's relationship with the superintendent as
dynamic, personal, and professional. WATERFALL teachers view the
principal as actively seeking both independence and influence.
Independence is represented through curriculum changes that are
not in keeping with district requirements. Obtaining resources
demonstrate influence in abundance in the teachers' view.
The WATERFALL teachers believe that their school gets more
materials and equipment and receive these resources quicker than
other schools in the district. WATERFALL teachers attribute this
situation directly to their principal's dynamic and
multifaceted relationship with the superintendent. The
relationship is seen as both personal and professional since the
principal taught the superintendent's children.
The climate at WATERFALL
is open, dynamic, and energetic. Teachers and principal alike
are motivated by the children's needs. WATERFALL teachers
actively examine new methods of instruction, new curricula, new
resource materials, and share with each other the
children's successes. The WATERFALL principal actively
encourages the professional growth of her teachers, both
financially and emotionally. The WATERFALL teachers view the
principal/ superintendent relationship as being one of the
primary reasons for the principal's success in improving
the school and creating the school's positive
climate.
References
Anderman, E. M. &
Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle
grades.
Review of Education
Research. 64(2), 287-309.
Andrews, J.H.M (1965).
School organizational climate: Some validity studies.
Canadian
Educational and Research Digest. 5, 317-3 34.
Blau, P.M. (1974). On
the nature of organizations. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Blau, P.M. & Scott,
W.R, (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative
approach.
San Francisco:
Chandler.
Bossert, S. T., Dwyer,
D. C., Rowan, B. & Lee, G. V. (1982). The instructional
management role
of the principal.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 18 (3),
34-64.
Boyan, N. J. (Ed.)
(1988). Handbook of research in educational
administration. NewYork:
Longman.
Cook, K. S., Emerson, R.
M., Gilmore, M. R., & Yamagishi, T. (1983). The distribution
of
Power in exchange
networks: Theory and experimental results. American Journal
of Sociology. 89 (2), 275-305.
Crow, G. M. (1990).
Central office influence on the principal's relationship
with teachers.
Administrator's
Notebook, 34(1),
310-331.
Crowson, R. L. &
Morris, V. C. (1985). Administrative control in large-city
school systems:
An investigation in
Chicago. Educational Administration Quarterly. 21 (4),
51-70.
DeVellis, R. F.
(1991). Scale development: Theory and applications.
Newbury Park, CA:
SAGE
Publications.
Duckworth, K. (1984).
Specifying determinants of teacher and principal work.
Eugene, OR:
Center for Educational
Policy and Management, University of Oregon.
Eccles, J. S. &
Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally
appropriate
classrooms for early
adolescents. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.) Research
on motivation in
education (Vol.
3, pp. 139-186). New York: Academic.
French, J. P. P., Jr.
& Raven, B. (1960). The bases of social power. In D.
Cartwright &
A. Zander (Eds.).
Group dynamics: Research and Theory. New York: Harper
& Row.
Goldring, E. B. (1993).
Principals, parents, and administrative superiors.
Educational Administration
Quarterly, 20 (1), 93-117.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1974).
Factor analysis. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders
Company.
Hart, A. (1993).
Principal succession: Establishing leadership in schools.
Albany, New York:
State University of New
York Press.
Halpin, A. W. &
Croft, D. B. (1963). The organizational climate of
schools. Chicago:
University of
Chicago.
Hoy, W. K., &
Miskel, C. G. (1991). Educational administration: Theory,
research, and practice. Fourth edition. New York: Random
House.
Hoy. W. K., Tarter, C.
J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open schools/healthy
schools: Measuring
organizational climate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Kalis, M. C. (1980).
Teaching experience, its effect on school climate, teacher
morale.
NASSP Bulletin,
64 (35),
89-102.
Keeler, B. T. &
Andrews, J. H. M. (1963). The leader behavior of principals,
staff morale and
productivity.
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 9 (3),
179-190.
Kimpston, R. D. &
Sonnabend, L. C. (1975). Public secondary schools: The
interrelationship
between organizational
health and innovativeness and between organizational
health
and staff
characteristics. Urban Education, 10, 27-45.
Koff, R., Laffey, J.,
Olson, G., & Cichon, D. (1979-80). Stress and the school
administrator.
Administrators'
Notebook, 28(9).
Licata, J. W. &
Willower, D. J. (1975). Student brinkmanship and the school as a
social system.
Educational
Administration Quarterly, 11, 1-14.
Louis, K. S. (1989).
The role of the school district in school improvements. In M.
Holmes, K.
Leithwood & D.
Musell (Eds.), Educational Policy for Effective
Schools.
Toronto, Canada:
Teachers College Press.
Marsh, H. W. (1989).
Age and sex effects in multiple dimensions of
self-concept:
Preadolescence to early
childhood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,
417-430.
Molm, L. D. (1990).
Structure, action and outcomes: The dynamics of power in
social
exchange. American
Sociological Review. 55, 427-447.
Morris, V. C., Crowson,
R. L., Porter-Gehrie, C. & Hurwitz, Jr., E. (1984).
Principals in action:
the reality of
managing schools. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing
Co.
Peterson, K. D. (1984).
Mechanisms of administrative control over managers in
educational
organizations.
Administrative Science Quartlery, 29 (4),
573-597.
Silberman, C. H.
(1970). Crisis in the Classroom: The Remaking of American
Education.
New York: Random
House.
Tabachnick, B. G. &
Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using Multivariate Statistics. New
York:
Harper &
Row.
Tashakkori, A. &
Thompson, V. (1991). Social change and change in intentions of
Iranian
youth regarding
education, marriage, and careers. International Journal of
Psychology,
226(2),
203-217.
Watkins, J. F. (1968).
The OCDQ: An application and some implications.
Educational
Administration
Quarterly. 4(2), 46-60.
Wiggins, T. (1972). A
comparative investigation of principal behavior and school
climate.
The Journal of
Educational Research. 66(3), 103-105.
About the
Authors
Catherine H.
Glascock, MBA, Ph.D.
Ohio University
Email: glascock@ohiou.edu
740-593-4464.
Catherine H.
Glascock Catherine H. Glascock is Assistant Professor
in the Educational Studies
Department at Ohio Univeristy. She holds an MBA in Finance and
Ph.D. in
Educational Administration from LSU. Her research interests
are school
structures, including facilities and finance. Catherine
has spend much of
her time evaluating the effectiveness of schhol districts
through grant
efforts and publishing about schoo structure impacts
on students. Her
abiding interest is in how schools can best meet
the needs of
children. To that end she is collaborating with
Rosalie Romano on a book
about expeditionary learning and commuity
linkages especially for poor
distirct children in Appalachia.
Diane
Taylor
Louisiana State
University
|
times since October 30, 2001