A New Era in the Professional Development of School ...

8 downloads 0 Views 872KB Size Report
*Related content and download information correct at time of download. Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT) ...
Journal of Educational Administration A New Era in the Professional Development of School Administrators: Lessons from Emerging Programmes Joseph Murphy Philip Hallinger

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

Article information: To cite this document: Joseph Murphy Philip Hallinger, (1989),"A New Era in the Professional Development of School Administrators: Lessons from Emerging Programmes", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 27 Iss 2 pp. Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578238910004004 Downloaded on: 11 August 2015, At: 00:56 (PT) References: this document contains references to 0 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 62 times since 2006* Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Miss Emilie McDermott

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Journal of Educational Administration 27,2 22

A New Era in the Professional Development of School Administrators: Lessons from Emerging Programmes by

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

Joseph Murphy and Philip Hallinger Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA The entire area of administrator training is, at present, undergoing thorough scrutiny. Questions have been raised about the adequacy of university-based training programmes. In addition, for perhaps the first time in the history of educational administration, the topic of staff development for principals and superintendents is receiving serious consideration. New programmes to provide systematic professional growth opportunities to school administrators are being developed by an ever-increasing number of groups, including principals themselves, state departments of education, federally sponsored laboratories and centres, professional associations, colleges of education and school districts. The National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration was established by UCEA in 1985 to conduct a thorough review of issues surrounding the training of school administrators. Our goal in this article is to show what is occurring in this new era of administrator training. We are particularly interested in examining the principles of this new era of training that distinguish it from the status quo. We also wish to point out what we see as the major lessons of the new training era for those involved in the development of training programmes for school administrators. Our approach is straightforward. We examined eleven approaches to training that are, we believe, representative of this new era of training. Descriptions of each approach listed in Figure 1 were developed for a forthcoming book on the topic of administrative training[1]. This article represents an analysis and synthesis of those eleven representative models of training. We begin this article with an analysis of the pressures for change in our methods of training school administrators — why the new era of turmoil? Next, we discuss briefly the areas of weakness in educational training programmes in general — an analysis of the status quo or traditional approaches to training. In the third part, The article is made up almost entirely from the concluding chapter of our book on Approaches to Administrative Training, State University of New York Press, 1987. We are indebted to the various chapter authors of that book. It is their work that made this review possible.

State

Programmes

— Maryland Professional Development Academy — The North Carolina Leadership Institute for Principals — The Institute of Educational Administration — Australia Professional Association

Programmes

— The American Association of School Administrator's Model for Preparing School Administrators' — The Center for Advancing Principalship Excellence (UCEA)

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

University/Laboratory — — — — — —

Development of School Administrators

and Centre

23

Programmes

Far West Laboratory Peer-Assisted Leadership Program The Harvard Principals' Center The Australian Administrative Staff College The Vanderbilt Principals' Center Lewis and Clark College's Summer Institute for Beginning School Administrators The IDEA Collegial Support Group Model

we devote considerable attention to the common aspects of the eleven emerging approaches listed in Figure 1 — an analysis of the principles that separate the new movement in training from the status quo. Finally, in the conclusion, we consider some of the problems involved in the new movement in training. Before we begin our analysis, a few points should be made. First, we use the word training throughout this article in a very broad sense, to denote any experience designed to promote the professional development of programme participants. We are well aware of current efforts to distinguish training from professional development and education. However, we believe that training serves as a reasonable rubric for the approaches presented in Figure 1. Secondly, a caveat on the generalisations drawn in the third part of the article is necessary. As Miklos[2] has noted, variations in training programmes make the formulation of generalisations difficult. Therefore, it is important to make clear that the commonalities and principles we describe are not to be found in each of the eleven models reviewed, but that they do reveal new themes and directions embedded in these approaches when viewed collectively. Thirdly, the status quo can almost always be made to look anaemic in comparison with new and improved products. Although it is difficult to circumvent what Mann[3] has rightly described as the basic paradigm of building new knowledge on the "sharp criticism of (someone else's) practice", we do not want to leave the reader with the impression that the old model of training has failed and now needs to be discarded in favour of a newer one. We agree with Crowson and McPherson and Culbertson[4] that much of the legacy of the theory movement should be retained. We see the need to develop better training models from the best of both worlds. Finally, we would be remiss if we did not delimit the scope of our charge. We are concerned primarily with understanding the impetus behind the new movement in administrator training and in discerning the insights that emerging approaches hold for the development of improved professional development programmes. For excellent reviews of: (1) the state of the art in administrative training, see the

Figure 1. Administrator Training Programmes Reviewed

Journal of Educational Administration 27,2

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

24

works of Pitner and Silver[5]; (2) research on administrative training, see Daresh and LaPlant[6], (3) the general development of administrative thought and training, see Callahan, Campbell, Cooper and Boyd, Crowson and McPherson, Culbertson, Tyack and Hansot, Walker, and Willower[7]. Pressures for Change Pressure to improve training for educational administrators is coming from a variety of sources. While we cannot treat them all, we describe six of the most significant sources below. The only generalisation we make before beginning the discussion is this: while the revolution in administrator training in the 1950s was spearheaded by the professoriate, much of the impetus for change in the 1980s emanates from sources outside university-based preparation programmes. While this can be partially explained by the growing scope and complexity of training in general — remember that in the early 1950s administrator training was still a relatively new enterprise — it also reflects changes in the control structure of professional development for school administrators.

Resurfacing of the School Administrator as a Key to School District Improvement For most of the last 25 years, a general belief in the professional impotence of administrators has prevailed. The picture of the school superintendent or principal as the beleaguered professional who could exercise little influence over his/her organisation and who was only distally connected to important educational processes and outcomes was widely accepted in educational administration circles. The development of this mind set in the profession coincided with the unfolding of a number of events that caused education in general to experience a tail-spin[8]. In addition, the frameworks and models used to describe educational administrators within organisations, especially open systems and political decision-making models, contributed to the emerging characterisation of school administrators as little more than caretakers. Three conditions are currently unfolding, however, which show that principals and superintendents can exert considerable influence over their schools and districts. First, there is a growing understanding that the very real conditions in schools captured by open systems and political decision-making theories render the administrator's job difficult, but not impossible. A general feeling of resignation is being replaced by analyses of ways in which administrators can work more effectively within the realities of schools as complex organisations. In addition, the dark cloud that has hung over education in general in the recent past is gradually dispersing. Education is once again at the forefront of the public agenda. Increases are being observed in highly visible measures of school outcomes, such as SAT scores. There has been a levelling off and even a small turnabout in the decline of public confidence in schools. The devastating effects caused by declining student enrolments have largely played out in most places. Schools have a stronger sense of direction, a more unified purpose, than they have had for some time. In a similar vein, some of the unrealistic expectations with which schools have been saddled have been somewhat tempered. There is a growing sense of confidence in the technology of schools, a belief that we are

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

better able to implement factors that will result in student learning outcomes. Anguish over the break-up of the educational coalition has been replaced with the knowledge that pluralistic bargaining actually works fairly well in the service of education's broader goals. And, finally, the upheaval caused by the onslaught of collective bargaining has receded somewhat as the catastrophic pronouncements of widespread teacher-administrator hostility and rampant loss of administrator influence have failed to materialise. An array of information is also emerging that shows more directly that school administrators are generally a key factor in change and improvement in schools and district. Support for this position is derived from five related literature sources: school change[9], school improvement[10], staff development[11], administrator as instructional leader[12], school effectiveness[13] and district effectiveness[14]. Common to all this literature is a sense of the power of the administrator as a significant force for improvement in organisational conditions, processes and student outcomes. Growing Realisation that Administrators are Often Inept Managers of Technical Core Operations Although, as Campbell[15] has noted, "The sub-areas of curriculum and instruction have particular significance for educational administration since administration is, after all, designed to enhance teaching and learning", most training programmes provide little exposure to these critical areas. Miklos[16] describes how, over the last 25 years, training has come to be dominated by the social sciences. Khleif[17] presents a particularly cogent example of how one elite training programme for superintendents socialises prospective administrators away from educational issues and concerns for students and towards management and organisational issues. Although some scholars[18] have suggested refocusing theory on issues of curriculum and instruction in administrative preparation programmes, their calls have generally gone unheeded. After analysing the content of superintendent training programmes, Champagne and his colleagues [19] reached the following conclusions: Our investigation indicates that the training of our most powerful educational leaders, our superintendents, is directed mainly to concerns other than those of the learning of students. In fact, a great many superintendent training programs appear to exclude any in-depth study of curriculum, instruction or supervision. Thus we are saying that principals do not study any of these areas in any depth either.

Gerritz et al. [20] concluded that a major problem with university training programmes, according to California school administrators, is their failure to provide skills in the technical areas of observation and evaluation of classroom behaviour. Research at every level of educational management consistently uncovers administrators who believe they should devote more time to instructional issues [21]. Yet the instructional leadership role is one that most administrators perform neither well nor often. Studies at the district office level have determined that superintendents neither spend much time on curricular and instructional matters at the central office nor co-ordinate and monitor these areas at the school level[22].

Development of School Administrators

25

Journal of Educational Administration 27,2

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

26

Investigations of the principalship at both the secondary[23] and elementary[24] levels also find that instructional leadership is generally conspicuous by its absence. As we have reported[25] elsewhere: Taken together, these studies present a picture of administrators whose time is heavily devoted to matters other than curriculum and instruction, to issues of student discipline, parent relations, plant operations and school finance. Most principals do not formally supervise and evaluate teachers, plan and co-ordinate curriculum, actively monitor the technology of the school or the progress of students, or spend much time in classrooms. In short, most principals do not act as instructional leaders. Rather, in most districts and schools, curriculum and instruction are managed by default.

This judgement is not surprising, given the lack of consideration accorded to technical core issues in formal administrative training programmes and in-service activities[26]. Absence of instructional leadership is often attributed to the multiple demands and time pressures inherent in administrative roles[27]. This is clearly a contributing factor. However, an even more powerful explanation is the lack of knowledge on the part of administrators about how to manage technical core operations. As our understanding of the correlation between active instructional management and student learning has grown, so has pressure to change training content to provide superintendents and principals with the technical skills needed successfully to manage curriculum and instruction in their district and schools. Proliferation of the School Reform Ideology A number of influential authors have determined that the educational reform movement of the 1980s should consider the improvement of administrators as well as that of teachers. For example, Cooper and Boyd[28] conclude "that the national needs for educational reform and improvement demand not simply an overhaul of the teaching profession but also an improved and rejuvenated cadre of educational managers". Our own analysis supports the contention that pressures for upgrading the quality of school administrators are an integral aspect of many of the major reform proposals[29]. More importantly, there is abundant evidence of pressure for improvement in administrative training in the various state legislative responses to the reform reports. They contain two types of demands for change in administrative training content — requirements for additional training (e.g. recertification) and for greater emphasis on technical skills in the areas of curriculum and instruction (e.g. demonstration of ability to evaluate teachers). In addition, these state reform packages call for an important process change in educational administration training programmes — the creation of multiple sources of programme delivery, especially the use of administrative academies and centres. Growing Disenchantment with the Theory Movement One of the major forces contributing to the new era of turmoil in educational administration is an increasing disillusionment with the theory movement and the social science frameworks that have shaped preparation programmes over the last 30 years[30]. Elsewhere[31], we have observed that: Trying to adequately grasp the role of the school principal with reference solely to normative theories and models is like turning on one's high beams to see more clearly in the fog; the area of illumination is increased, yet clarity of vision is reduced.

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

Culbertson[32] made the same point when he observed that the "mission, stance and approaches, of the theory movement, have offered insufficient guides of the study of educational administration". While it is beyond the scope of this article to develop all the critiques that have been levelled against the theory movement, we will discuss three problems with these analyses that are contributing heavily to the demands for new approaches to training of school administrators. All three focus on the theme of the practical applications of the theory movement. First of all, Campbell[33] has declared that "educational phenomena have served the disciplines instead of the disciplines being brought to bear upon educational problems''. Translating theory into strategies to improve schools is a difficult enough enterprise when serious attempts to do so are undertaken. In the absence of such efforts, theory is likely to be of little use to school personnel. Secondly, there is an inherent assumption in the theory movement that scholars adept at developing models and frameworks are also skilled in translating them into practice and that universities can effectively develop bridges between research and practice. Mann and Campbell[34] have both commented on the inaccuracy of this assumption. As a consequence, theory has often remained untranslated and has provided little guidance to administrators in the day-to-day operation of schools. Thirdly, the theory perspective has failed to adhere to its own core ideas and subsequently has become, to some extent, a movement conducted more for its own sake than for improving schools. Culbertson[35] identifies the four core ideas of the theory movement as research originating from and guided by theory; reliance on social and behavioural science concepts and methods of investigation; almost exclusive reliance on hypothetico-deductive systems, and an emphasis on description of practice rather than prescriptions for administrative behaviour. It is our position that the theory movement has become tarnished because it is perceived to have only marginal practical value to school personnel. However, unlike some, we do not believe that this is due primarily to emphasis on theory or reliance on the social sciences. Rather, the general disillusionment with the usefulness of the theory movement stems from overemphasis on the hypothetico-deductive approach and the concomitant failure to stress inductive approaches and to use qualitative lenses to examine organisational phenomena. As a result, the "upward seepage of empirical juice" [36] that was expected to refine theory to the conditions of the workplace has been conspicuous by its absence. In time, the theory movement has begun to look less and less descriptive and more and more normative[37]. The theory movement's failure to adhere to its own philosophical underpinning of "reality checking" has caused it to be viewed by many practitioners as worse than useless. And this perceived lack of usefulness and inability to describe organisational conditions accurately have contributed to the demands for alternative approaches to administrative training. Increasing Disgruntlement with the University Training Model It is not surprising that a model of training which promulgates ideas often judged to be impractical and unconnected to the realities of the workplace, that neglects

Development of School Administrators

27

Journal of Educational Administration 27,2

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

28

to provide guidance in managing technical core operations, and that often fosters the perception of professional impotence should come under attack by school administrators. What is surprising is that it took so long for alternatives to the university-based monopoly to gain a foothold. Daresh and LaPlant[38] reviewed the university training model for adherence to the principles of quality staff development and found numerous deficiencies. In their judgement: "University courses are excellent ways for participants to earn degrees, satisfy scholarly curiosity, or meet state certification requirements, but, as long-term solutions to the need for more effective administrator in-service, they are limited". In addition, both Mann and Bridges [39] have written provocative essays in which they describe how the processes and procedures stressed in university programmes are often diametrically opposed to conditions that characterise the workplace milieu of schools. For example, as Bridges has observed, while within the school context a premium is placed on verbal skills, the ability to make quick decisions and activeness, we train our students to be passive, to use rational decision-making models, and to develop their written skills to the near exclusion of oral ones. Practitioners have become disillusioned by the failure of university programmes to ground training procedures in the realities of the workplace and by their reluctance to treat content viewed as useful by administrators. This disenchantment, in turn, is partially fuelling the demand for changes in methods of training school administrators. Growing Perception of Little Improvement in Administrative Practice There is an emerging belief that, for a number of reasons, including those noted above (e.g. limited applicability of the theory movement to administrative practice; unrealistic training processes emphasis in many university programmes), all of the labours of the past 30 years have produced few real improvements in administrative practice and school organisation. After his review of the research on school administration between 1967 and 1980, Bridges[40] reported that: The research seemed to have little or no practical utility. In short, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that a major theoretical issue of practical problem relating to school administrators has been resolved by those toiling in the intellectual vineyards since 1967.

Blumberg[41], in his article on school administration as a craft, goes even further. He states: "My bets are that one cannot point to a single administrative practice that has been influenced in any significant degree by research on the behavior of administrators". While these complaints might be viewed as disenchantment with the theory movement or with university training programmes, we note them separately because they reflect a more global dissatisfaction with the status quo in educational administration. They not only reflect a new era of turmoil, but supply grist to demands for improvements in educational administration in general, and in administrative training programmes in particular. Finally, it is important to point out that the topic of administrative training has not been adequately addressed in the research[42]. While this does not create pressure for new methods of providing administrative training per se, it does produce a context in which the development of a wide variety of approaches for the delivery

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

of training is encouraged. Mann[43] has suggested that the time is ripe to "let a hundred syntheses bloom''. This documented lack of knowledge about which path to follow encourages the development of multiple avenues of attack to the problem of improving administrative practice.

Development of School Administrators

Analysis of Current Conditions Although it is not our intention to provide a comprehensive analysis of current training programmes, we discuss below what we consider to be the major generic problems with existing professional development in the area of school administration. While much of this critique is particularly germane to universitybased training programmes, the analysis is designed to reveal weaknesses in the condition of administrator training in general. Of the ten points presented, the first five focus on content issues, the next four on processes, and the last one on connecting theory and practice. Need for a Stronger Knowledge Base The knowledge base guiding administrative training is inadequate and inappropriate. Elsewhere, Silver[44] does an excellent job of explaining the need for a more appropriate base of information on which to build training programmes. She discusses the importance of a "professional knowledge" base similar to that emphasised in other professions, such as medicine and law. Given the fact that educational administration is an applied science, there is much to be said for Silver's position. Need for Theory that Reflects the Realities of the Workplace While a central tenet of the theory movement is the refinement of theory on the basis of findings uncovered through empirical investigations, we noted above that, in eschewing the inductive research approach, many of the frameworks from the social sciences have turned out to be more normative than descriptive. Two changes can help improve this situation. First, content of the training of school administrators should be derived to a greater extent from grounded theories[45] and ecologically valid research[46]. Secondly, better refinement of deductive theories through more rigorous testing against actual situations is needed; more attention should be given to the positivistic aspects of the logical positivism foundations of the theory movement. Need for Content Derived from Research about Factors that Contribute to Important Organisational Outcomes, Especially Indicators of Student Progress Even for an institution that assiduously avoids inspecting outcomes [47], the lack of research on the impact of administrative actions on organisational outcomes is difficult to explain. Not surprisingly, given this research void[48], remarkably little content in training programmes is based on administrators' effects on organisational outcomes. This situation is no longer defensible. While our knowledge about school improvement is not so firmly based as one might like, it is strong enough to provide direction for administrative training programmes.

29

Journal of Educational Administration 27,2

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

30

Need for Greater Emphasis on Managing Technical Core Operations The content of most training programmes in educational administration has remarkably little to do with education. In his case study of an elite training programme for superintendents, Khleif[49] reported that only one of the twelve required courses was in the area of curriculum; none dealt with supervision or instruction. Andes[50] found that 60 per cent of the 108 superintendent training programmes in his sample required one or fewer courses in supervision, curriculum and instruction combined; 80 per cent mandated two or fewer courses. In another analysis of superintendent training programmes, Champagne et at. [51] reported that coursework in the areas of supervision, instruction and curriculum comprised only eleven per cent of the total required training package. Half the sample programmes required no courses in instruction, and a quarter mandated no coursework in supervision or curriculum. Although this situation can be explained[52], given our expanding understanding of curricular and instructional effects on student outcomes[53], it can ho longer be defended. Need for Greater Emphasis on Skill-based Instruction Surveys continue to reveal that practising school administrators judge university training programmes to be only "intermittently useful" [54]. One of the reasons for this is the rather pervasive anti-recipe philosophy found in schools of educational administration. As a consequence, many of these programmes fail to provide potential role holders with the skills required to perform their jobs successfully. This is a disservice to administrators for a number of reasons. First, the belief that the job of professors in educational administration is to concentrate on comprehensive theories and frameworks and to eschew skill instruction is both wrong-headed and counterproductive. Secondly, the assumption that administrators will acquire needed skills on the job is open to challenge. Given the isolated working conditions of many administrators and the rather low extent of socialisation within the profession[55], it is difficult to understand whence knowledge of these skills is likely to come and even more difficult to see how they will be perfected in the absence of collegial feedback. Finally, school administrators need skills if they are to be successful. As March[56] reminds us: Much of the job of an educational administrator involves the mundane work of making a bureaucracy work. It is filled with activities quite distant from those implied by a conception of administration as heroic leadership. It profits from elementary competence.

Although we do not claim that training programmes should be restricted to the development of skills, we do judge the systematic exclusion of skill instruction as regrettable. Need to Bring the Training Process More in Line with the Conditions and Milieu of the Workplace We noted earlier Bridges'[57] delightful article depicting the discrepancies between the placid training milieu of university programmes and the turbulent environment of practising school administrators. New efforts should be devoted to developing

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

instructional strategies that not only provide administrators with meaningful knowledge and skills, but do so while fostering process skills prized in the workplace. Need for Better Instruction At least three improvements can be suggested in the area of formal instruction. First, the overall quality of teaching in educational administration training programmes should be improved. A good deal of what occurs in these programmes is labelled as teaching solely because it involves an instructor and students. Little of it employs either the principles or techniques noted in the teacher effects literature. Secondly, the variety of approaches by which students learn should be increased. While lecture and discussion can be useful, they must be supplemented with an array of other instructional strategies. Special attention should be given to exposing participants to methods of learning that they can use on the job (e.g. reflective thinking). Thirdly, we need to place greater emphasis on "reality oriented instructional situations and materials" [58]. Our instructional technology should be geared more towards translating theory into practice. More and better use of clinically based field experiences, school improvement projects, simulations, management games, assessment centres and so forth is needed. Need to View Administrators as Adult Learners In her analysis of the application of the principles of quality staff development to administrator training programmes, Pitner[59] reminds us that there are basic differences in the ways that children and adults learn. We see little recognition of this difference in many traditional training programmes in educational administration. These could be strengthened if they were more systematically infused with the principles of adult learning described by Pitner. Need to Emphasise More Thoroughly the Principles of Effective Change and Staff Development In an earlier part of this article, we referenced a number of important studies in these two areas that found the school administrator to be a key factor in school improvement. These studies have implications for school administrator training. Recent information about successful methods of promoting change and institutionalisation provides a realistic sense of optimism about the possibility of school improvement. In many current training programmes this content is not stressed. Equally important, many do not provide instruction congruent with the principles embedded in this literature, e.g. providing students with opportunities to practise skills and to work collaboratively with peers. Need to Build New and Improved Avenues between Theory and Practice While a number of the conditions noted earlier are indicators of this need, given the widespread disillusionment with the theory movement among practitioners, it deserved to be re-emphasised. For all of the attention devoted to this important task over the last 25 years, remarkably little progress has been achieved. Training programmes continue to be driven by books, lectures and examinations. Many

Development of School Administrators

31

Journal of Educational Administration 27,2

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

32

of them place only marginal emphasis on what administrators actually do on the job. Clinical experiences in schools are often perfunctory. Practising administrators are generally not used in a meaningful way in the teaching process. Schools are infrequently utilised as learning laboratories. Reality-based training situations and materials are not regularly emphasised. Lecturers still believe, and are encouraged to do so, that they can be researcher, programme developer and trainer. In short, we have not progressed very far in our efforts to bridge theory and practice. New attacks on the problems which focus on both the content and processes of administrative training programmes are greatly needed. Common Aspects of Emerging Programmes: New Perspectives In this part of the article, we examine emerging approaches to the training of school administrators in order to identify their common principles and themes. While we concentrate on the eleven perspectives noted earlier, we also rely on our first­ hand knowledge of the burgeoning administrator academy movement, experience with an alternative university-based doctoral programme, and analysis of the effects of the current educational reform era for training programmes. We must reemphasise that we are extracting general themes from these sources, not creating a model to which each of the eleven approaches reviewed corresponds. Content Two significant changes in programme content can be identified in many of the emerging approaches to training: increased emphasis on findings from the educational effects research and more knowledge based on descriptive theory. Knowledge base — In general, there is a shift away from frameworks borrowed from the social sciences and towards the information contained in the educational effects literature. Specifically, there is greater emphasis onfindingsfrom the teacher effects literature, effective schools and school improvement research, and descriptions of the principal as instructional leader. In addition, more attention is paid to the experiences administrators bring to these programmes than to traditional approaches to training. Elsewhere, March[60] has noted: "Historically, the most significant instruments for co-ordinating activities within American education have been shared information and belief." Quite different information and beliefs are embedded in the school effects literature from those in the social science frameworks that have informed traditional training programmes. This change augurs well for the co-ordination and control of schools. Theoretical structure — In the new approaches to training, content is heavily grounded on descriptive analysis. There is both a broad acceptance of, and a general sense of excitement about, the use of inductive processes to inform training content. We see more problems in search of solutions and fewer solutions in search of problems in the new training movement. We also see fewer established truths. There is a growing interest in "experiential learning" and "naturalistic studies". Many of these programmes acknowledge that administrator action is "guided by the demands of the situation and then by theory that is 'inexplicit, inarticulate, and mostly unconscious; (it) draws heavily on intuition or on experience stored away in memory, fragmentary, disorderly' "[61]. Conscious efforts are made in

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

the new training movement to have these experiences provide more useful frameworks for administrative action. All of this attention to descriptive theory emanates from our growing understanding that "the chances of turning vision of what ought to be into realities are enhanced by empirically based understandings of schooling and its contexts" [62]. In addition to increased reliance on the use of inductive lenses, we see three other practice-driven changes in the new theory movement. First, emphasis on learning rather than on teaching is found throughout the approaches found in Figure 1. This condition is also congruent with the teacher effects literature. Secondly, there is some movement away from a science paradigm and towards a craft framework in these emerging approaches to training. Training is likely to be viewed as an opportunity "to celebrate and put to use the craft knowledge school leaders have accumulated from years of experience" [63]. Programmes are often carefully constructed and deliberately designed for consolidating and building on experience. Administrators have more knowledge and skills than they currently use. Many of the new training programmes recognise this hidden pool of talent and strive to make it a source of learning. Thirdly, informal learning is heavily stressed in these training programmes. Since it is an accepted tenet of these programmes that students can learn much from having occasions to socialise professionally, opportunities for informal learning are often built into these approaches. In Figure 2 we sketch out the contributions that the content stressed in the new theory movement brings to administration in general and to administrative practice in particular. The hypothetico-deductive process emphasised in the theory movement has had a strong influence on the development of theoretical constructs and models and a weak influence on administrative practice. Although it is premature to make any definitive judgement, it appears that the inductive approach to the study of administration emphasised in the new training movement is having some effect on the development of conceptual models and theories of administration [64], but that this effect is not especially strong. Likewise, there is a connection between these descriptive theories and administrative practice, but this connection is not particularly robust either. On the other hand, there is some reason to believe that the direct linkage between administrative behaviour and actual practice is powerful in the emerging approaches to training. Although this "naked empiricism" [65] has been condemned by some in the theory movement, we do not share their view. It is time to remove the unsavoury shadow that has been cast over this avenue for informing practice, which is an important component of a tripartite approach to improving administrative practice. Processes We discern three important shifts in the processes emphasised in many of the training approaches described herein: a few major changes in the structure of the delivery process; an enhanced role for students in the teacher-learning process, and a good deal of attention devoted to professional socialisation. Structural conditions — One of the most obvious points to be made in this regard is that the source of training is changing: there is an "increasing diversity of administrator training programs" [66]. While universities are represented in the

Development of School Administrators

33

Journal of Educational Administration 27,2

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

34

new training movement, and while lecturers are often associated with nonuniversity-based programmes, new sources of administrator training are becoming prevalent. For example, of the eleven models reviewed for this article, we have two examples of programmes sponsored by professional associations (the APEX Center and the AASA model). State departments of education are taking an increasingly active role in developing training programmes (e.g. Maryland, North Carolina), as are the federally funded research centres and laboratories (e.g. Far West's Peer-Assisted Leadership Program). Administrator academies and centres are springing up throughout the country[67] (e.g. Harvard Principals' Center). Finally, a number of districts have become important developers and disseminators of training programmes for principals and superintendents (e.g. San Diego County). These new programmes manifest an increasing variety of approaches to administrative training, as well as a refreshing willingness to redefine existing delivery systems and to develop new ones. Two other structural process changes are worth noting. First, greater diversity is exhibited in the location of training services than has previously been the case. One site that is receiving more attention as a source of learning is the school itself. Another is the regional or special centre. Secondly, the instructors for many

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

of these programmes are as likely to come from the ranks of the practitioner as Development from universities. of School Role of learners — Throughout the emerging approaches to administrator training, Administrators we find a much higher level of participant involvement in programme planning, implementation and evaluation than we find in university-based training models. To begin with, training is generally predicated more on the identified needs of the learners than on certification requirements. Professionals often exercise 35 considerable influence over programme content through a formal agenda-setting role. Secondly, learners in many of these programmes also have an important role in the delivery of the programme content. Sometimes they are active in the initial delivery of material, and sometimes they are important facilitators within longerterm learning cycles (e.g. as networkers and support group members). Thirdly, participants generally wield more power within the new training movement than they do within more traditional programmes. Their roles in establishing programme agendas and providing training are examples of this influence. In addition, in some of these approaches, administrators exercise a governing or policy-making function. Fourthly, there is some evidence to indicate that learners play an important role in post-programme implementation effort through networking programmes and collegial support groups. Finally, although the role of participants is not so significant in the area of programme evaluation as it is, for example, in planning and implementation, learners do engage in assessment of the training within these new perspectives. Professional socialisation — Khleif[68] defined professionalisation as follows: Professionalization, as a distinct form of adult socialization, means an acquisition of a new identity, a commitment to an ideology, an establishment of a social bond through peer solidarity. This relocation of self in terms of others depends on rites of passage; the more clear cut the rites, the more intense the professionalization.

He goes on to note that, because of the instalment plan training format followed by American educators, they cannot be classified as professionalised. "For this reason, they lack peer sentiments, an ethic of autonomy and a sense of adequacy" [69]. Gerritz et al. [70] and Pitner[71] have drawn similar conclusions about the professionalisation of school administrators in particular. Within the new training movement, however, we detect increased attention to the professionalisation of administrators. While these efforts are often, perforce, limited by the training formats employed, a number of factors underscored in these programmes act to reduce isolation among professionals and to facilitate the development of shared beliefs, knowledge and values. Examples of direct professionalisation strategies include peer networks and collegial support groups, syndicates and residential programmes. In addition, emphasis on informal learning, attention to the person, as well as to course content, and the employment of training strategies that underscore the role of the learner as teacher all contribute to the professionalisation of the participants. Supporting Tissue The term supporting tissue refers to the collection of factors and conditions that influence the effectiveness of the delivery of programme training and subsequently

Journal of Educational Administration 27,2

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

36

the application of training content at the school or district job site. Emphasis on supporting tissue in the emerging approaches to administrator training is discussed below under three topics: adult learning theory and staff development; school improvement/change, and instruction. Adult learning theory/principles of staff development — The training approaches reviewed for this article are more heavily grounded on the principles of adult learning theory than are traditional models. We believe that the following specific factors relevant to adult learning theory characterise the new administrative training movement: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

emphasis on the active role of the learner; focus on learning that is job related and useful; underscoring of the importance of self-directed learning; stress on informal learning and professional socialisation; emphasis on application of learning content; modelling of teaching/learning principles (e.g. the administrator as teacher); employment of a non-remedial perspective in training; provision of regular feedback during training; focus on meeting an array of participant needs (e.g. process and content needs), and ● creation of an environment of trust and respect. Many of the models presented here adhere to the precepts of effective staff development uncovered over the past 15 years (see Joyce and Showers, Little, PDK[72]). The following generalisations appear to distinguish emerging models of training from university-based programmes. First, as noted previously, training content is likely to be based on the participants' needs and there is "mutuality of responsibility in defining goals, planning and conducting activities, and evaluating" [73]. It is worth noting that Daresh and LaPlant[74] found this type of training to be especially effective with school administrators. In addition, peer instruction and coaching are underscored in a number of these programmes. There is more emphasis on peers modelling appropriate skills than in many university-based programmes. Conscious efforts are made to break down the barriers between the roles of teacher and learner. Considerable attention is devoted in these programmes to establishing a safe and supportive environment for learning. Emphasis on informal learning, employment of a non-remedial instructional perspective, and the merging of the teaching and learning roles all contribute to this effect. In addition, many of the eleven administrative training programmes reviewed expend more energy providing attractive physical learning environments than does the average university programme. Finally, the application of information presented during training is heavily underscored in the new training movement. Specific approaches in the new

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

movement are more likely than traditional programmes to help participants translate Development knowledge into skills. They are also much more likely to emphasise the development of School of site-level improvement projects based on that knowledge and those skills. Administrators Furthermore, activities in these programmes reflect the principle of professional development as a continuous and ongoing process better than university programmes which stress terminal degrees and certification. Principles of school improvement/change — Many of the principles of effective 37 school improvement/change that are prevalent in these emerging approaches to administrator training have been noted above. In this section, we shall therefore concentrate only on those that have not been adequately addressed. Clark, Lotto and Astuto[75] remind us that, in addition to attending to content, the school improvement literature underscores the critical role played by the people in the improvement process. Considerable attention is devoted to the human aspect of improvement throughout this emerging movement in administrator training. People shared equal billing with programme content. Another generalisation worth reporting is that, while university programmes often focus on extrinsic rewards, e.g. degrees, certification and increased earning power, the approaches reviewed here are more concerned with intrinsic rewards for participants. Although external rewards receive some attention in these programmes, the primary focus is on self-renewal, validation of self and role, empowerment for change, and providing meaning to work. In addition, the significance of the school as a unit of change that is embedded in the school improvement literature [76] has worked its way into these programmes to a much greater extent than in traditional training models. School-wide plans for improvement are, therefore, often stressed in the new training movement. Finally, not only are schools more likely to be viewed as "organic wholes" in emerging training models, but the precept that successful change will often require an integrated, long-term plan also receives more attention here than in traditional training programmes. Principles of quality instruction — Although the conclusions drawn in this section are less firm than those noted in the preceding two sections, we do see some evidence that these newer perspectives on training are adhering to some of the principles of effective instruction. Three pieces of evidence lead us to this conclusion. First, training strategies within the new training movement tend to be action oriented, actively to engage participants. Secondly, within their various programme formats, they employ a wide battery of learning approaches, including role playing, simulation, shadowing, writing exercises and reflective thinking. Finally, although the evidence is still quite tentative, we discern greater use of the stages of effective instructional lessons[77] (set, present, model, practice, over-learn and review) in these approaches than in university-based training programmes. Focus We now examine three application aspects of the emerging training models that distinguish them from traditional approaches to training: internal focus, empowerment focus and skill implementation focus.

Journal of Educational Administration 27,2

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

38

Internal focus — Although clearly not the case in each of these approaches to professional development, on the whole, we see evidence of an internal organisational perspective dominating the new training movement. Specifically, substantial energy is consumed on issues related to technical core operations, and there is less concern for environmental issues. While we have discussed the problems inherent in maintaining this perspective elsewhere [78], we wish to emphasise here that the refocusing of attention on internal matters can also have numerous beneficial effects. As noted earlier, the failure of traditional training programmes to treat curricular and instructional topics adequately is particularly difficult to defend. In addition, the proliferation of open systems analysis in the past 20 years has led to overemphasis on organisational-environmental interchanges at the expense of conditions internal to schools[79]. We therefore see the redirection noted above as appropriate. Empowerment focus — The focus in emerging training programmes seems to be more on empowerment for change than on accumulation of knowledge. While both focuses are stressed in traditional and emerging approaches, the balance between the two is different in each case. In more traditional programmes, development of knowledge is underscored. The new training movement places greater emphasis on helping administrators to generate the tools that will enable them to make ongoing improvements on the job. A number of factors promote this enabling focus. To begin with, many of the new approaches underscore the need to learn from the myriad activities that transpire daily on the job. Coupled with this is a more realistic understanding of leadership as a series of small activities guided by a central mission rather than as a handful of especially significant decisions. These training programmes are much less likely than traditional approaches to treat management and leadership as separate concepts[80]. In an insightful article on the professorship in educational administration, Willower[81] called for administrator training programmes to cultivate the "reflective temper" in practitioners. The approaches to training reviewed for this article seem to be working more effectively towards this goal than traditional training programmes. After his evaluation of one of the approaches we analysed, the Australian Staff College programme, Stephens[82] concluded: "It does, however, meet better than other teaching and learning methods the objectives of participants reflecting on their experiences and examining their assumptions and views of managerial work." The development of case records in the APEX Center, writing projects employed at the Harvard and Vanderbilt Principals Centers, and the shadowing and reflective thinking activities in the Peer-Assisted Leadership Program are all examples of methods newer training programmes employ to help administrators cultivate a reflective temper. Finally, we are convinced that this sense of empowerment is nurtured through the emphasis in these approaches on professional socialisation in general and on mutual work arrangements in particular. A fundamental but latent principle in many of these programmes was best captured by Levine et al. [83] when they reported:

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

' 'It may be that sustained interpersonal contact is as critical to learning and staff Development development as scope and sequence of content." This belief is embedded in many of School of the newer approaches to training we reviewed. Furthermore, we view it as Administrators an important avenue of empowerment for continuous professional growth. Implementation focus — We noted above that there is a shift in these new approaches away from developing knowledge for its own sake. Their emphasis on skill development and implementation of new practices is a second reflection 39 of this change. In this new training movement, substantial attention is paid to developing the connections among knowledge, skill development and skill use. We also find evidence that the implementation components of these programmes are grounded in the effective change literature. Finally, although these approaches often have a specific content focus, they do a relatively good job of acknowledging that school administrators work in what Mann[84] called "context-soaked situations" and of allowing them to devise solutions tailored to local conditions. Conclusion We began this article by examining some of the conditions that have helped foster interest in the creation of new approaches to the professional development of school administrators. We reported that, for a variety of reasons, the significant role of the principal in school improvement has been reaffirmed in recent years. We reviewed the growing disillusionment with the theory movement, university training programmes and the impact of the study of educational administration in general. We discussed how the school reform movement of the 1980s and the efforts to develop more instructionally competent leaders have facilitated the creation of new approaches to professional in-service. Next, we reported on current conditions in the area of administrator training and noted ten areas where improvement was needed. In reviewing the content of training programmes, we argued the need for a stronger knowledge base, one that better reflects the realities of the workplace found in schools, that deals with information related to important educational outcomes, that places additional emphasis on skill development, and that more fully incorporates knowledge of effective teaching and learning uncovered over the past 15 years. In the area of training processes, we reported a need to make better use of what we know about effective delivery of training content, including greater adherence to the principles of quality staff development and adult learning theory. We closed by re-emphasising the need to develop more effective strategies to bridge research and practice. In the third part, we presented, within a four-part framework, commonalities among the new approaches to training. We concluded that there were significant changes in the knowledge base and theoretical structures of this new training movement. We noted the increased emphasis on the teacher effects and school effectiveness literature. We saw that inductive research methods were helping to create training perspectives based more on administrator practice than on theoretical frameworks and models. Under the rubric of processes, we reported that there were important changes in programme delivery structures, as well as an increased

Journal of Educational Administration 27,2

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

40

role for training participants, and greater attention devoted to professional socialisation. The new movement in administrator training was characterised as incorporating the principles of quality teaching, staff development and school improvement more fully than traditional training models. We reported that instruction in these programmes was more likely than university-based training models to reflect the principles of adult learning theory. Finally, in terms of focus, we concluded that these programmes maintain more of an internal perspective and show greater concern for the development of technical skills and personal empowerment than the theory movement approach to training. We would be remiss if we were to close without noting what we believe to be some of the more significant potential problems in these emerging approaches to administrative training. Almost all of the ones we have uncovered centre on the possibility that these new approaches will overemphasise their strengths to the exclusion of other ideas and perspectives. To begin with, there is some indication that the lessons gained from the preceding 25 years of the theory movement may not receive the attention they deserve. For example, we detect a trend towards the overemphasis of inductive methods at the expense of the frameworks and theories used in more traditional training programmes. Secondly, because experiential learning is underscored so heavily in this new era of training, there is a strong tendency to codify current practice as "appropriate and good". While we applaud the widespread attention to the realities of the workplace found in these perspectives, we caution programme developers to remember that there are limits to learning from experience and that experiential learning should be grounded within larger conceptual and theoretical frameworks. Thirdly, the emphasis for improvement in many of the current programmes is, perhaps, based excessively on the interests of individuals at the expense of the needs of the larger organisations in which they work. While there is much to commend in training programmes designed to meet the perceived needs of individual administrators, the literature on staff development, change and school improvement also encourages the use of system-wide approaches to training. Scant attention is paid to this perspective in the new training movement. Finally, systematic analyses of programme effects are conspicuous by their absence in all of the eleven approaches listed in Figure 1. Assessments that do a better job of measuring both short- and long-term programme effects are sorely needed. References 1. Murphy, J. and Hallinger, P. (Eds.), Approaches to Administrative Training, State University of New York Press, New York, 1987. 2. Miklos, E., "Evolution in Administrator Preparation Programs", Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 19, 1983, pp. 153-77. 3. Mann, D., "What Peculiarities in Educational Administration Make it Difficult to Profess: An Essay", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 13, 1975, pp. 139-47. 4. Culbertson, J.A., "Antecedents of the Theory Movement", Educational Administratioti Quarterly, Vol. 17, 1981, pp. 25-47; Crowson, R.L. and McPherson, R.B., "The Legacy of the Theory Movement: Learning from the New Tradition", in Murphy, J. and Hallinger, P. (Eds.), Approaches to Administrative Training, State University of New York Press, New York, forthcoming.

5. Silver, P.F., "Administrator Preparation", in Mitzel, H.E. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Educational Research, Vol. 1, 5th ed., Free Press, New York, 1982.

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

6. Daresh, J.C. and LaPlant, J.C., "In-service for School Administrators: A Status Report", paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 1984. 7. Callahan, R., Education and the Cult of Efficiency, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962; Campbell, R.F., "A History of Administrative Thought", Administrator's Notebook, Vol. 26, 1977-78, pp. 1-4; Cooper, B. and Boyd, W.L., "The Evolution of Training for School Administrators", in Murphy, J. and Hallinger, P. (Eds.), Approaches to Administrative Training, State University of New York Press, forthcoming; Crowson, R.L. and McPherson, R. B., op cit.; Tyack, D. and Hansot, E., Managers of Virtue: Public School Leadership in America, 1920-1980, Basic Books, New York, 1982; Walker, W.G., "Administrative Narcissism and the Tyranny of Isolation: Its Decline and Fall, 1954-1984", Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 20, 1984, pp. 6-23; Willower, D.J., "Evolution in the Professorship: Past, Philosophy, Future", Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 19,1983, pp. 179-200. 8. Campbell, R.F., "The Professorship in Educational Administration — A Personal View", Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 17, 1981, pp. 1-24. 9. Fullan, M., "Implementing Educational Change: Progress at Last", paper prepared for a conference on the Implications of Research on Teaching for Practice, Warrenton, Virginia, February 1982, sponsored by the National Institute of Education; Gaynor, A.K. and Clauset, K.H., "Improving School Effectiveness: The Dynamics of Implementation", paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 1984; Miles, M.B., "Unraveling the Mystery of Institutionalization", Educational Leadership, Vol. 41, 1983, pp. 14-19. 10. Clark, D.L., Lotto, L.S. and Astuto, T.A., "Effective Schools and School Improvement: A Comparative Analysis of Two Lines of Inquiry", Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 20,1984, pp. 41-68; Leithwood, K.A. and Montgomery, D.J., "The Role of Elementary School Principal in Program Improvement'', Review ofEducational Research, Vol. 52,1982, pp. 309-39; Hall, G.E. el al., "Leadership Variables Associated with Successful School Improvement", paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 1983. 11. Gall, M. et al., Involving the Principal in Teachers' Staff Development: Effects on the Quality of Mathematics Instruction in Elementary Schools, Center for Educational Policy and Management, Eugene, Oregon, 1984; Lambert, M.D. and Lambert, L.G., "The Study of Staff Development: From a Particularistic to a Systems Perspective", paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 1983; Little, J.W., "Norms of Collegiality and Experimentation: Work Place Conditions of Schools Success", American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 19, 1982, pp. 325-40. 12. Bossert, S.T. et al., The Instructional Management Role of the Principal: A Preliminary Review and Conceptualization, Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, San Francisco, 1981; DeBevoise, W., "Synthesis of Research on the Principal as Instructional Leader", Educational Leadership, Vol. 41,1984, pp. 14-20; Firestone, W.A. and Wilson, B.L., "Using Bureaucratic and Cultural Linkages to Improve Instruction: The Principal's Contribution", Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 21, 1985, pp. 7-30; Hallinger, P. and Murphy, J. et al., "Instructional Leadership: A Conceptual Framework", Planning and Changing, Vol. 14, 1983, pp. 137-49; Rutherford, W.L., "School Principals as Effective Leaders", Phi Delta Kappa, Vol. 67,1985, pp. 31-4; Russell, J.S. et al, "Linking the Behaviors and Activities of Secondary School Principals to School Effectiveness: A Focus on Effective and Ineffective Behaviors", Center for Educational Policy and Management, Eugene, Oregon, 1985.

Development of School Administrators

41

Journal of Educational Administration 27,2

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

42

13. Duignan, P., "Near Enough Is Not Good Enough: Developing a Culture of High Expectations in Schools", Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration, Studies in Educational Administration, Vol. 37, 1985, pp. 1-12; Edmonds, R.R., "Effective Schools for the Urban Poor", Educational Leadership, Vol. 37, 1979, pp. 15-24; Hallinger, P. and Murphy, J., "The Social Context of Effective Schools", American Journal of Education, Vol. 94,1986, pp. 328-55; Hersh, R.H., "What Makes Some Schools and Teachers More Effective?", unpublished paper, University of Oregon, College of Education, Eugene, Oregon, 1981; Murphy, J. et al., "School Effectiveness: A Conceptual Framework", The Educational Forum, Vol. 49,1985, pp. 361-74; Why Do Some Urban Schools Succeed?, Phi Delta Kappa, Bloomington, Indiana, 1980; Purkey, S.D. and Smith, M.S., "Effective Schools: A Review", Elementary School Journal, Vol. 83, 1983, pp. 427-52; Rosenholtz, S., "Effective Schools: Interpreting the Evidence", American Journal of Education, Vol. 93,1985, pp. 352-89; Rutter, M. et al., Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and their Effects on Children, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1979; Squires, D.A., "Characteristics of Effective Schools: The Importance of School Processes", Research for Better Schools, Inc., Philadelphia, 1980; Wellisch, J.B. et al., "School Management and Organization in Successful Schools", Sociology of Education, Vol. 51,1978, pp. 211-26; Wynne, E.A., Looking at Schools: Good, Bad, and Indifferent, D.C. Heath, Lexington, Mass., 1980. 14. Cuban, L., "Transforming the Frog into a Prince: Effective School Research, Policy and Practice at the District Level", Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 54,1984, pp. 129-51; Ogawa, R.T. and Hart, A.W., "An Examination of the Effect of Superintendents on the Instructional Performance and School Districts", paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 1984; Murphy, J. and Hallinger, P., "Characteristics of Instructionally Effective School Districts", Administrator's Notebook, in press; Rowan, B., "Instructional Effectiveness in School Districts: A Conceptual Framework", Far West Laboratory for Research and Development, San Francisco, 1983. 15. Campbell, R.F., op. cit. 16. Miklos, E., op. cit. 17. Khleif, B.B., "Professionalization of School Superintendents: A Sociological Study of an Elite Program'', in Bamhardt, R., Chilcott, J. and Wolcott, H. (Eds.), Anthropology and Educational Administration, Impresora Sahuaro, Tucson, Arizona, 1979. 18. Erickson, D.A., "An Overdue Paradigm Shift in Educational Administration", in Cunningham, L.L., Hack, W. and Nystrand, R.(Eds.), Educational Administration: The Developing Decades, McCutchan, Berkeley, California, 1977. 19. Champagne, D.W. et al., "Analysis of the Content of Training Programs for Chief School Administrators in the Areas of Instructional Methodology, Curriculum and Instructional Supervision", paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 1984. 20. Gerritz, W., Koppich, J. and Guthrie, J., Preparing California School Leaders: An Analysis of Supply, Demand and Training, University of California, Berkeley, 1984. 21. Casey, H., "Managerial Behavior of Principals", unpublished PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1980; Willower, D.J. and Fraser, H.W., "School Superintendents on their Work", Administrator's Notebook, Vol. 28, 1980 pp. 1-4; Yakel, J., "The Priorities of the Formal Curriculum versus What Happens in the Classroom: Concerns for Identifying Areas of Variation among Teachers Implementing an Instructional Program in the Classroom", unpublished Field Studies II Paper, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1985. 22. Duignan, P., "Administrative Behavior of School Superintendents: A Descriptive Study", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 18, 1980, pp. 5-26; Hannaway, J. and Sproull, L.S., "Who's Running the Show? Co-ordination and Control in Educational Organizations", Administrator's Notebook, Vol. 27, 1978-79, pp. 1-4; Willower, D.J. and Fraser, H.W., op. cit.

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

23. California State Department of Education, California High School Curriculum Study: Paths through High School, Sacramento, California, 1984; Hanson, E.M., "Organizational Control in Educational Systems: A Case Study of Governance in Schools", in Bacharach, S.B. (Ed.), Organizational Behavior in Schools and School Districts, Praeger, New York; Little, J.W. and Bird, T.D., "Is there Instructional Leadership in High Schools? First Findings from a Study of Secondary School Administrators and their Influence on Teachers' Professional Norms", paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 1984; Martin, M.J. and Willower, D.J., "The Managerial Behavior of High School Principals", Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 17,1981, pp. 69-90; McLeary, L.E. and Thompson, S.D., The Senior High Principalship: Volume III, Summary Report, National Association of Secondary School Principals, Reston, Virginia, 1979. 24. Gersten, R. and Carnine, D., Administrative and Supervisory Support Functions for the Implementation of Effective Educational Programs for Low Income Students, Center for Educational Policy and Management, University of Oregon, Eugene, 1981; Morris, V.C. et al., Principals in Action: The Reality of Managing Schools, Charles E. Merrill, Columbus, Ohio, 1984; Peterson, K.D., "The Principal's Task", Administrator's Notebook, Vol. 26,1977-78, pp. 1-4. 25. Hallinger, P., Murphy, J. and Miller, S.K., Instructional Leadership for School Improvement, Charles E. Merrill, Columbus, Ohio, forthcoming. 26. Champagne, D.W. et al., op. cit.; Daresh, J.C. and LaPlant, J.C., op. cit. 27. For reviews on the nature of administrative work, see, Duignan, P. op. cit.; Martin, M.J. and Willower, D.J. op. cit.; Morris, V.C. et al., op. cit.; Willis, Q., "The Work Activity of School Principals: An Observational Study", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 18, 1980, pp. 27-34; Willower, D.J. and Fraser, H.W., op. cit. 28. Cooper, B. and Boyd, W.L., op. cit.; see, also, Peterson, K.D. and Finn, C.E., "Principals, Superintendents, and the Administrator's Art", The Public Interest, Vol. 79,1985, pp. 42-62. 29. See, for example, National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative of Educational Reform, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1983; see, also, Passow, A.H., Reforming Schools in the 1980s: A Critical Review of the National Reports, ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1984. 30. Campbell, R.F., op. cit.; Cooper, B. and Boyd, W.L., op. cit.; Crowson, R.L. and McPherson, R.B., op. cit. 31. Murphy, J., "An Essay Review of Principals in Action: The Reality of Managing Schools", Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 22, 1986, pp. 125-8. 32. Culbertson, J.A., op. cit. 33. Campbell, R.F., op. cit. 34. Mann, D., op. cit.; Campbell, R.F., op.cit. 35. Culbertson, J.A., op. cit. 36. Ibid., p. 34. 37. See, Morris, V.C. et al., op. cit. 38. Daresh, J.C. and LaPlant, J.C, op. cit., p. 5. 39. Mann, D. op. cit.; Bridges, E.M., "The Nature of Leadership", in Cunningham, L.L., Hack, W. and Nystrand, R. (Eds.), Educational Administration: The Developing Decades, McCutchan, Berkeley, California, 1977. 40. Bridges, E.M., "Research on the School Administrator: The State of the Art, 1967-1980", Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 18, 1982, p. 25. 41. Blumberg, A., "The Craft of School Administration and Some Other Rambling Thoughts", Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 20, 1984, p. 27.

Development of School Administrators

43

Journal of Educational Administration 27,2

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

44

42. Daresh, J.C. and LaPlant, J.C., op. cit. 43. Mann, D., op. cit., p. 146. 44. Silver, P.F., "Case Records: A Reflective Practice Approach to Administrator Development", Theory into Practice, Vol. 25, 1986, pp. 161-7. 45. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L., "Grounded Theory", in Denzin, N.K. (Ed.), Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978. 46. Hanson, R.A. and Schutz, R.E., "A New Look at Schooling Effects from Programmatic Research and Development", in Making Change Happen, Teachers College Press, New York, 1978. 47. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B., "Notes on the Structure of Educational Organizations: Revised Version", paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, California, August 1975. 48. Bridges, E.M., op. cit. 49. Khleif, B.B., op. cit. 50. Cited in Champagne et al., op. cit. 51. Champagne et al., op. cit. 52. See Callahan, R.E., op. cit.; Tyack, D. and Hansot, E., op. cit. 53. Alexander, K.L. and Pallas, A.M., Curriculum Reform and School Performance: An Evaluation of the New Basics, Center for Social Organization, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 1983; Pallas, A.M. and Alexander, K.L., "Sex Differences in Quantitative SAT Performance: New Evidence on the Differential Coursework Hypothesis", American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 20, 1983, pp. 165-82; Walberg, H.J. and Shanahan, R., "High School Effects on Individual Students", Educational Researcher, Vol. 12,1983, pp. 4-9; Brophy, J. and Good, T.L., "Teacher Behavior and Student Achievement", in Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.), The Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed., Macmillan, New York, 1985; Rosenshine, B., "Teaching Functions in Instructional Programs", Elementary School Journal, Vol. 83,1983, pp. 335-51. 54. Peterson, K.D. and Finn, C.E., op. cit., p. 49; Gerritz, W. et al., op. cit. 55. Gerritz, W. et al., op. cit.; Pitner, N.J., Training of the School Administrator: State of the Art, Center for Educational Policy and Management, University of Oregon, 1982; Peterson, "Obstacles to Learning from Experience and Principal Training", Urban Review, in press. 56. March, J.C, "American Public School Administration: A Short Analysis", School Review, Vol. 86, 1978, p. 233. 57. Bridges, E.M., op. cit., "The Nature of Leadership". 58. Miklos, E., op. cit., p. 166. 59. Pitner, N.J., "Principles of Quality Staff Development: Lessons for Administrator Training", in Murphy, J. and Hallinger, P. (Eds.), Approaches to Administrator Training, State University of New York Press, New York, forthcoming. 60. March, J.C, op. cit., p. 242. 61. Mann, D., op. cit., p. 140. 62. Willower, D.J., op. cit., p. 191. 63. Levine, S.L. et al., "The Harvard Principals' Center: School Leaders as Adult Learners", in Murphy, J. and Hallinger, P. (Eds.), Approaches to Administrative Training, State University of New York Press, New York, forthcoming. 64. See Bossert, S.T. et al., op. cit.; Murphy, J. et al., "Academic Press: Translating High Expectations into School Policies and Classroom Practices", Educational Leadership, Vol. 40,1982, pp. 22-6; Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. and Mesa, R.P., "School Effectiveness: Checking Progress and Assumptions and Developing a Role for State and Federal Government", Teachers College Record, Vol. 86, 1985, pp. 615-41; Rowan, B., op. cit.

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

65. Culbertson, J.A., op. cit., p. 26. 66. Miklos, E., op. cit., p. 158. 67. Compilations of administrative academies are available from the Harvard Principals' Center and from Educational Commission of the States. 68. Khleif, B.B., op. cit., p. 52. 69. Ibid., p. 64. 70. Gerritz, W. et al., op. cit. 71. Pitner, N.J., "Training of the School Administrator". 72. Joyce, B. and Showers, B., "Improving In-service Training: The Messages of Research", Educational Leadership, Vol. 38, 1980, pp. 379-85; Little, J.W., op. cit.; Phi Delta Kappa, "In-service Education", Practical Applications of Research, Vol. 5, 1983, pp. 1-4. 73. Knowles, M., cited in Pitner, N.J., "Principles of Quality Staff Development". 74. Daresh, J.C. and LaPlant, J.C., op. cit. 75. Clark, D.L. et al., op. cit. 76. Coleman, P., "Toward More Effective Schools: Improving Elementary School Climate", Administrator's Notebook, Vol. 31,1985, pp. 14; Goodlad, J.I., A Place Called School:Prospects for the Future, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1984; Finn, C.E., Toward Strategic Independence: Policy Considerations for Enhancing School Effectiveness, National Institute of Education, Washington, DC, 1983; Purkey, S.D. and Smith, M.S., School Reform: The Policy Implications of the Effective Schools Literature: Vol. 1 — District Policies, DRAFT, Center for Educational Research, University of Wisconsin, 1983. 77. See Good, T.L., Grouws, D. and Ebmeier, H., Active Mathematics Teaching, Longman, New York, 1983; Murphy, J., Weil, M. and McGreal, T.L., "The Basic Practice Model of Instruction", Elementary School Journal, in press; Rosenshine, B.V., op. cit. 78. Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. and Mitman, A., "Problems with Research on Educational Leadership: Issues to be Addressed", Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 5,1983, pp. 297-305. 79. See, for example, Lam, Y.L.J., "Relationship between Setting, Size and School Environmental Characteristics", Administrator's Notebook, Vol. 31, 1985, pp. 1-4. 80. See also, Dwyer, D.C. et al., Five Principals in Action: Perspectives on Instructional Management, Far West Laboratory for Research and Development, San Francisco, 1983; Dwyer, D.C, "The Search for Instructional Leadership: Routines and Subtleties in the Principal's Role", Educational Leadership, Vol. 41, 1984, pp. 32-7; Bossert, S.T. et al., op. cit.; Murphy, J. et al., "Problems with Research on Educational Leadership"; Murphy, J. et al., "School Effectiveness: Checking Progress and Assumptions". 81. Willower, D.J. op. cit., p. 190. 82. Cited in Walker, W.G., "The Australian Administrative Staff College: The Syndicate Method", in Murphy, J. and Hallinger, P. (Eds.), Approaches to Administrative Training, State University of New York Press, forthcoming. 83. Levine, S.L. et al., op. cit. 84. Mann, D., op. cit., p. 140.

Development of School Administrators

45

Downloaded by Emerald Staff, Miss Emilie McDermott At 00:57 11 August 2015 (PT)

This article has been cited by: 1. Christopher G. Bezzina. 2001. The professional development of headteachers in Malta: trends and developments. International Journal of Educational Management 15:3, 138-144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 2. Clive Harber, Alex Dadey. 1993. The job of headteacher in Africa: Research and reality. International Journal of Educational Development 13, 147-160. [CrossRef] 3. Neil Johnson. 1993. Preparing Educational Administrators: An Australian Perspective. Journal of Educational Administration 31:1. . [Abstract] [PDF] 4. Neil Johnson. 1993. Supervised Fieldwork and the Development of Educational Managers. Cambridge Journal of Education 23, 319-332. [CrossRef] 5. Mitchell D. Chester, Raymond L. Pecheone. 1992. Assessment‐based Licensing of School Principals. International Journal of Educational Management 6:3. . [Abstract] [PDF]