Leadership and Context

Because principals are seen as the primary leaders in the individual school, this section of this paper examines how the principal is both a part of the context while feeling the impact of the context. Because specific strategies used by principals or others leading school improvement efforts are addressed elsewhere (Hord, 1992), issues are raised in this section, as in preceding sections, that are intended to heighten awareness regarding the existence of factors that appear to facilitate or impede change. Without awareness of their existence, educators cannot possibly address the problems they present to change, or the help they may provide for change might be overlooked.

Ecology

A study by Hallinger, Bickman and Davis (1990) of school administrators found that the impact of the context of the school on administrators is as profound as it is for students and teachers. "Factors such as school district size and complexity, the number and types of special programs, faculty experience and stability, school level, district support and expectations and other factors shape the principal's approach to instructional leadership" (p. 8). In addition, features of the community such as homogeneity, socioeconomic status of families, parental expectations and involvement, and geographic location simultaneously constrain the principal and provide different opportunities for leadership (Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1990). Principals who are aware of the inorganic factors of the school context and their influence on school improvement efforts may take steps to reduce or enhance the impact of those factors depending on the needs of their school.

Culture

Leaders seeking to improve schools for at-risk students will nurture the norms of school culture that support lasting school improvement. Fullan (1992) notes that developing collaborative work cultures to help staff deal with school improvement efforts is a major responsibility of the principal. He asserts that "the message for both the school and district levels is captured in Schein's (1985) observation: 'The only thing of real importance that leaders do is to create and manage culture'" (p. 20). An additional challenge for principals is that they are also part of the culture of the school through their attitudes and relationships with others.

Principal attitudes toward change.
Sarason (1982) describes how past experiences can influence a principal's beliefs. Experiences as a teacher can cause principals to view going into the classroom for purposes of evaluation and change as a hostile intrusion. A belief that the power to legislate change is no guarantee that the change will occur also may be based in part on the principal's experience as a teacher. These experiences create "the tendency to deny that problems exist in the school" (Sarason, 1982, p. 147).

According to Berman and McLaughlin's 1975 study, the active support of principals powerfully affects a project's implementation and continuation. The principal's contribution to implementation lies in giving moral support to the staff and in creating a culture that gives the project "legitimacy" rather than in "how to do it" advice (Sarason, 1982, p. 77). Teachers need the sanction of their principal to the extent that the principal is the "gatekeeper of change" (Berman & McLaughlin, 1975, p. 20).

Principals' actions serve to legitimate whether a change is to be taken seriously and to support teachers both psychologically and with resources. The principal is the person most likely to be in a position to shape the organizational conditions necessary for success, such as the development of shared goals, collaborative work structures and climates, and procedures for monitoring results (Fullan, 1991). "Change efforts fail if principals do not understand and support them, if faculties do not view them as relevant to their own goals and needs and if the community and central office do not provide ongoing encouragement, support, and resources" (Gauthier, 1983, p. 9).

Most people believe a school principal has a good deal of power and freedom to act in the school. They rarely realize that there are numerous restrictions, formal and informal, that limit the principal's freedom of action (Sarason, 1982). One principal faced with impending restructuring described the conflicting feelings the prospect evoked: "I feel like a bird that has been caged for a long time. The door is now open. Will I dare to fly out? I am beginning to realize that the bars of the cage that have imprisoned me have also protected me from the hawks and falcons out there." (Barth, 1990, p. 128)

Principals have little formal preparation for managing change at the school level. The principal must face problems of change that are as great as those that confront teachers. Many principals feel that "other people simply do not seem to understand the problems they face" (Fullan, 1991, p. 76). Simpson (1990) asserts that leaders, just like teachers, need partners, someone to nurture them, and persons with whom to collaborate.

The attitude that "the system" will not allow certain practices is not questioned by many principals. This attitude presents a significant barrier to improvement efforts. Evidence that some principals within the same system change their practices and that these practices are tolerated by "the system," is an indication that as important as the system itself is, the way the principal perceives the system is even more significant (Sarason, 1982).

Principal relationships with teachers.
As it goes between teacher and principal so will it go in other relationships in the school. If the teacher-principal relationship can be characterized as helpful, supportive, trusting, so too will relationships between teachers, students, and parents. Unfortunately, according to Barth (1990), the relationships between teachers and principals have become increasingly strained with growing emphasis on teacher empowerment, pupil minimum competency, collective bargaining, reduction in teacher force, increased litigation, and above all "accountability." The administrative subculture must deal with issues of accountability, control, and change. Deal (1985) asserts that these values "frequently place principals in direct conflict with teachers" (p. 611). According to Goodlad (1984), however, "a bond of trust and mutual support between principal and teachers…appears to be basic to school improvement" (p. 9).

Change will be undermined if misconceptions held by teachers regarding administrators and by administrators regarding teachers are not dealt with. Liftig (1990) asserts that administrators perceptions of teachers as "the Loafer, the Artful Dodger, and Them" and teachers' perceptions of administrators as the "Snoopervisor, the Terminator, and the Successful Incompetent" cloud this essential relationship for school improvement.

Louis and Miles (1990) note that broad participation in developing the change program is essential to implementation. Sarason (1990) argues that schools, like other social systems, can be described in terms of power relationships and that recognition of these relationships and the distribution of power is a significant issue in change. The basis for power rests with the acquisition of three commodities: information (technical knowledge, expertise), resources (money, human services, material goods, space, time), and support (endorsement, backing, legitimacy). Access to these commodities by those ultimately responsible for using a specific innovation is critical to successful implementation (Patterson, Purkey, & Parker, 1986). Personnel who will encourage the flow of information between the formal and informal systems and, where needed, make sure that the flow occurs are needed. Teachers who are influential leaders are especially useful in assisting with implementation through informal networks within the school (Krueger & Parish, 1982).

In a study of five schools in Missouri that had adopted national improvement programs and then discontinued them within a short time, Krueger and Parish (1982) identified an "informal covenant" that exists between teachers and principals. This covenant defines the roles of each group and relationship between them where implementation of new programs is concerned. "Principals control access, resources, and decision making. Teachers control what is going to actually be implemented, if anything" (p. 138). This covenant was responsible for the demise of the new programs at these schools according to the study.

Relationships with the district.
The degree to which the superintendent supports school improvement affects the ability of individual schools to increase student achievement (Wimpelberg, Teddlie, & Stringfield, 1989). The superintendent and central office supervisors are key figures in stimulating and facilitating efforts to maintain and improve the quality of instruction (Everson, Scollay, Fabert, & Garcia, 1986; Firestone & Wilson, 1991; Patterson, Purkey & Parker, 1986; Pajak & Glickman, 1989; Pink, 1990). "Teachers and others know enough now, if they didn't 20 years ago, not to take change seriously unless central administrators demonstrate through actions that they should" (Fullan, 1991, p. 74). Levine (1991) notes that the success of an effective schools program depends on a "directed autonomy" defined as a mixture of autonomy for participating faculties and control from the central office (p. 392).

Relationships with the external environment.
Principals are accountable to parents, the central office, school boards, and the state department of education. The school principal is the agent through which others seek to prevail on teachers to do their bidding. "Principals are judged on the basis of how effectively they can muster teachers to the drumbeats of these others, by how well they monitor minimum competency measures, enforce compliance with districtwide curricula, account for the expenditure of funds, and implement the various policies of the school board." (Barth, 1990, p. 27) With these many forces exerting pressure on the principal, focus on the change effort may be difficult. Hallinger, Bickman, and Davis (1990) found, however, that parental involvement has a positive impact on principal leadership.

The support of the community for the school and efforts to improve the school have been shown to be vital for lasting implementation. Because the school's culture is impacted heavily by the external environment, the introspection and critical examination of the school by those who are implementing school improvement efforts cannot occur without a supportive community. If schools are to be successful in providing success for all students, especially those at risk, parents and other members of the community must be actively involved in the school and school improvement effort.

Community involvement often entails the allocation of resources to eliminate disadvantages in students' access to resources (Nettles, 1991). One significant contribution of business is support of adequate and equitable financing of the public schools and an insistence that the schools produce students who are properly prepared for the workforce and who are good citizens (Carnegie Foundation, 1989). It is essential that the community, including parents, social agencies, businesses, and civic and volunteer organizations, be involved particularly in rural areas where resources are simply too scarce to attempt to deal with problems in isolation (Helge, 1989).

Support groups are the key ingredients in reducing opposition to change. It is important, first, to identify target groups that are essential for effecting change. Some of the critical groups include "teachers, and teachers' organizations; school administrators and the groups that represent them; school boards; parents; civic, business, and political leaders, including governors and legislators; and taxpayers generally" (Cole, 1991, p. 79). There is little chance to survive the competition for limited resources without the appropriate constituency (Sarason, 1982).

Implications

Caught between the external demands of constituent groups and the needs of teachers and students, as well as the community and institutional contexts, administrators at both the district and building level have a difficult role to fulfill. Their attitudes, beliefs, and values, like those of teachers and students, profoundly impact efforts to improve schools.

Administrators must often take risks regarding what the system will allow. It is they who provide support, both psychologically and through the allocation of resources, to give credence to implementation efforts. Without this support, these efforts will not succeed. Administrators demonstrate this support through power sharing and relationships with teachers. As previously stated in this paper, establishing and nurturing a culture of shared power and decision making, with norms of introspection for continuous improvement, is an important task for school administrators. It is a task that is shaped by the community and institutional context in which administrators find themselves.