Problems with Research on Educational Leadership: Issues To Be Addressed

Principal Vision, Environmental Robustness, and Teacher Sense of Autonomy in High Schools

“…Most of the research on educational leadership and school effectiveness in general has been conducted in elementary schools. Because high schools are different enough in structure and culture from elementary schools, one must use great care in generalizing findings from studies at the elementary school level to high schools (Murphy, Hallinger, & Mitman, 1983). For example, it is much more difficult to create common goals and focus in high schools than in elementary schools because high schools have greater diversity of purpose and objectives, and greater organizational complexity due in part to size and departmentalization.…”

“…Murphy, Hallinger, and Mitman (1983) find some educational leadership research, focused on traits and behaviors, to be very lacking. They note, for example, that to consider leadership as:…”

Instructional Leadership Perceptions and Practices of Elementary School Leaders

“…Some ambiguity exists in early definitions of "strong instructional leadership from the principal" (Weber 1971;Cuban, 1984;Murphy, Hallinger & Mitman, 1983).…”

Exploring distributed instructional leadership : case studies of assistant principals in an urban school district.

“…Of these variables, school size and level (elementary vs. high) were of significance. There had been more research on instructional leadership behaviors in elementary schools than in secondary schools and oftentimes these behaviors were not transferrable to other levels (Duke 1982;Ginsberg, 1988;Hallinger & Murphy, 1985;Murphy, 1988;Murphy, Hallinger, & Mitman, 1983). School size was relevant because it affected the percentage of direct versus indirect actions of the principal and depending on the type of research performed indirect instructional leadership behaviors were perceived as management actions and discounted.…”

“…Research was based on failing elementary schools that required turnarounds and this context birthed a brand of instructional leader that was directive, authoritative, and appeared as a lone hero to save the school in crisis (Hallinger 2005;Murphy, 1988;Murphy, Hallinger, & Mitman, 1983;Rowan, Bossert, & Dwyer, 1983). Proponents of Effective Schools continued to make a case for principals who led instruction with a direct hands-on approach even though Edmonds (1982) admitted that researchers of effective schools had not yet established a causal relationship between instructional leadership and school effectiveness.…”