School context and individual characteristics: what influences principal practice?

Abstract

PurposeAs they operate in complex schools principals must allocate their attention to numerous responsibilities. This paper seeks to ask three questions: how do principals allocate their attention across major realms of responsibility; to what extent do principals in different contexts emphasize different realms of responsibility; and to what extent do individual attributes affect how principals allocate their attention across realms?Design/methodology/approachA cluster analysis is applied to data from a daily log of principal practices to identify principals who allocate their attention across major realms of responsibility in similar ways. With the three groups identified in the cluster analysis a discriminant analysis is then used to examine the individual attributes of the principals and the contexts within which these groups work to identify those individual characteristics and contextual conditions that best predict each principal's cluster membership.FindingsThe data from the log indicate that principals are not as fragmented across numerous realms of responsibility as previous research suggests. Some principals do spend considerable time on instructional leadership. The cluster analysis revealed three groups: “Eclectic” Leaders (their activities are distributed more evenly across different activities); Instructional Leaders (they focused most on Instructional Leadership); and Student Leaders (they emphasized student affairs). In the paper's discriminant analyses no individual attributes distinguished amongst the three types of principals; only contextual conditions predicted membership.Research limitations/implicationsThe results point to the influence that context plays on school principals' practice; principals appear to prioritize and focus their actions under more challenging contextual conditions. The next step in the analysis is to determine how the leadership clusters and principal practices relate to important school outcomes.Originality/valueThe paper provides useful information on influences on school principals' practice.

Effect of Time Management on the Job Satisfaction and Motivation of Teacher Educators: A Narrative Analysis

“…It allows people to follow structured and purposive paths (Bond & Feather, 1988;Sabelis, 2001;Strongman & Burt, 2000;Vodanovich & Seib, 1997) to gain sufficient insight to distribute time efficiently across multiple activities (King et al, 1986), which helps individuals to maximise and enhance their intellectual productivity (Britton & Tesser, 1991). One study of principals and their time allocation practices found that principals allocate their time across a variety of responsibilities, including matters related to employees, budgeting, student services, external relations and a host of other areas (Goldring et al, 2008;Grissom, Loeb & Master 2013;Horng, Klasik & Loeb, 2010;Spillane, Camburn & Pareja, 2007;Spillane & Hunt, 2010). Principals also spend time on organisational management, including, specifically, personnel management, budgeting and other school outcomes (Horng, Klasik, & Loeb, 2010;May, Huff, & Goldring, 2012).…”

Principals’ perceptions of public schools’ professional development changes during NCLB

“…There is more recent attention on the effects of contexts on instructional leadership with increasing evidence that contexts can influence principals' practices (Goldring, Huff, May, & Camburn, 2008;Hallinger, 2011a;Louis, Leithwood, et al, 2010;Louis & Robinson, 2012). The school community is a complex environment, and many contextual factors at the state and local levels shape principals' perceptions and actions as leaders.…”

“…They found that the principal had to confront not only fiscal and organizational challenges, but community poverty, violence, and professional apathy. Principals' attention on different school and community factors can affect the amount of time they actually focus on instructional leadership (Goldring et al, 2008).…”

“…Accountability measures and the emphasis on test scores have resulted in principals' increased focus on test preparation and low-level skill development which occurs more in low-SES and urban settings (Gardiner, Canfield-Davis, & Anderson, 2009;Hallinger & Murphy, 1986;Ladd & Zelli, 2002;Newton, Tunison, & Viczko, 2010;Volante et al, 2008). Goldring et al (2008) studied how principals in schools with varying levels of student composition used their time towards instructional leadership. They found a distinct difference between schools with higher levels of minority students and lower-SES than schools with more affluent and higher levels of White students.…”

“…Leadership for learning includes the potential influence of school level context, climate, and other factors on principals' instructional leadership (Glickman, 2002;Hallinger, 2003Hallinger, /2011bLouis, Leithwood et al, 2010;Male & Palaiologou, 2012;Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, & Porter, 2007). This model focuses on instructional leaders' role to influence or improve instruction while considering the importance of collaborative leadership practices (Macbeath, Frost, & Swaffield, 2008;Reardon, 2011;Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003).…”