The superintendent as instructional leader: Findings from effective school districts

Journal of Educational Administration

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 1986, Pages 213-236

  Murphy, Joseph ^a   Hallinger, Philip ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b ST JOHN'S UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0010958307     PISSN: 09578234     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/eb009917     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Kent Peterson who participated in the research project from which this paper was developed.
2. Tyack, D. and Hansot, E. Managers of Virtue: Public School Leadership in America, 1820-1980. New York. Basic Books. 1982.
3. Cuban, L. Urban School Chiefs Under Fire. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 1976; Tyack, D. and Hansot, E. op. cit.
4. Cuban, L. “Transforming The Frog Into a Prince: Effective Schools Research, Policy, and Practice at The District level” Harvard Educational Review. 54. 2. May 1984. pp. 129-151.
5. Cotton, K. and Savard, W.G. “The Principal as Instructional leader.” Paper prepared for Alaska Department of Education, Office of Planning and Research. Audit and Evaluation Program. Northwest Regional Education laboratory. Portland, Oregon. December 1980; Biester, T.W., Kruse, J., Beyer, F. and Heller, B. “Effects of Administrative leadership on Student Achievement.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans. April 1984; Brookover, W.B., Schneider, J.H., Beady, J.M., Flood, C.H. and Wisenbaker, J.M. “Elementary School Social Climate and School Achievement” American Educational Research Journal. 15, 2. Spring 1978. pp. 301-318; Edmonds, R.R. “Effective Schools for the Urban Poor” Educational Leadership. 40, 3. October 1979. pp. 15-24; Hart, A.W. and Ogawa, R.T. “An Examination of the Effect of Superintendents on the Instructional Performance of School Districts.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans. April 1984; Phi Delta Kappa. Why Do Some Urban Schools Succeed? Bloomington, Indiana 1980; Sweeney, J. “Research Synthesis on Effective School leadership” Educational Leadership. 39, 5. February 1982. pp. 346-352; Wellisch, J.B., MacQueen, A.H., Carriere, R.A. and Duck, G.A. “School Management and Organization in Successful Schools” Sociology of Education. 51. July 1978. pp. 211-226.
6. Rowan, B. Instructional Effectiveness in School Districts: A Conceptual Framework. San Francisco. Far West laboratory for Research and Development. 1983.
7. Bridges, E. “The Nature of leadership” in Educational Administration: The Developing Decades, Cunningham, L., Hack, W. and Nystrand, R. eds. Berkeley. McCutchan. 1977.
8. Cuban, L. “Transforming the Frog Into a Prince” op. cit.; Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. and Mitman, A. “Problems With Research on Educational leadership: Issues to be Addressed” Educational Evaluational and Policy Analysis. 5, 3. Fall 1983. pp. 297-305.
9. Mintzberg, H. The Nature of Managerial Work. New York. Harper & Row. 1973.
10. Duignan, P. “Administrative Behavior of School Superintendents: A Descriptive Study” The Journal of Educational Administration. 18, 1. July 1980. pp. 5-26; Larson, 1.1., Bussom, R.S. and Vicars, W.M. The Nature of a School Superintendent's Work: Final Technical Report. Carbondale, I.L. Southern Illinois University. 1981; Pitner, N.J. and Ogawa, R.T. “Organizational leadership: The Case of the School Superintendent” Educational Administration Quarterly. 17, 2. Spring 1981. pp. 45-65; Willower, D.J. and Fraser, H.W. “School Superintendents on Their Work” A dministrator's Notebook. 28, 5.,1980. pp. 1-4.
11. Bridges, E.M. “Research on the School Administrator: The State of the Art” Educational Administration Quarterly. 18, 3. Summer 1982. pp. 12-33; Hallinger, P. “Assessing the Instructional Management Behavior of Principals” Ed.D. Dissertation. Stanford University. 1983; Pitner, N.J. “The Mintzberg Method: What Have We Really learned?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York. March 1982.
12. Bridges, E.M. op. cit.
13. Rowan, B. op. cit.
14. Firestone, W.A. “The Study of loose Coupling: Problems, Progress, and Prospects.”Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans. April 1984; Peterson, K.D. “The Effect of District Size on the Use of Hierarchical and Non-Hierarchical Mechanisms of Control.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans. April 1984.
15. Astuto, T.A. and Clark, D.L. “Strength of Organizational Coupling in the Instructionally Effective School” Urban Education. 19, 4. January 1985. pp. 331-356; Hallinger, P. and Murphy, J. “The Superintendent's Role in Promoting Instructional leadership” Administrator's Notebook. 30, 6. 1982. pp. 1-4; Crowson, R.L. and Morris, V.C. “Administrative Control in large-City School Systems; An Investigation in Chicago.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, April 1984; Hannaway, J. and Sproull, L.S. “Who's Running the Show? Coordination and Control in Educational Organizations” Administrator's Notebook. 27, 9. 1979. pp. 1-4; Peterson, K.D. op. cit.
16. Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. and Mitman, A. “Problems With Research on Educational leadership: Issues to be Addressed” op. Cit. Peterson, K.D. “The Principal's Task” Administrator's Notebook. 26, 8. 1978. pp. 1-4; Willis, Q. “The Work Activity of School Principals: An Observational Study” The Journal of Educational Administration. 18, 1. July 1980. pp. 27-54.
17. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. “Grounded Theory” in Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook 2nd ed. Denzin, N.K. ed. New York. McGraw-Hill. 1978.
18. Ouchi, W.G. “A Conceptual Framework for the Design of organizational Control Systems” Management Science. 25, 1979. pp. 833-847.
19. Cohen, E.G. and Miller, R.H. “Coordination and Control of Instruction in Schools” Pacific Sociological Review. 23, 4. October 1980. pp. 446-473; Hanson, E.M. “Organizational Control in Educational Systems: A Case Study of Governance in Schools” in Organizational Behavior in Schools and School Districts. Bacharach, S.B. ed. New York. Praeger. 1981; Lortie, D.C., Crow, G. and Prolman, S. The Elementary School Principal in Suburbia: An Occupational and Organizational Study. Contract No. 400-77-0094, DC. National Institute of Education. 1983; Owens, R.G. “American High School: Characteristics of Organization and Culture and Their Impact on the Exercise of Leadership by the Principal.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans. April 1984; Peterson, K.D. “Mechanisms of Administrative Control Over Managers in Educational Organizations” Administrative Science Quarterly. December 1984. pp. 573-597.
20. Bossert, S.T., Dwyer, D.C., Rowan, B. and Lee, G.V. The Instructional Management Role of the Principal: A Preliminary Review and Conceptualization. San Francisco. Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. October 1981.
21. Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. and Peterson, K.D. “The Administrative Control of Principals in Effective School Districts: The Supervision and Evaluation Functions.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago. April 1985; Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. and Peterson, K.D. “An Exploratory Analysis of Effective School Districts in California: Emerging Themes.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago. April 1985.
22. Duckworth, K. Linking Educational Policy and Management With Student Achievement. Eugene. University of Oregon. Center for Educational Policy and Management. September 1981; Duckworth, K. Specifying Determinants of Teacher and Principal Work. Eugene. University of Oregon. Center for Educational Policy and Management. July 1983; Gersten, R. and Camine, D. Administrative and Supervisory Support Functions for the Implementation of Effective Educational Programs for Low Income Students. Eugene. University of Oregon. Center for Educational Policy and Management. September 1981; Firestone, W.A. op. cit.; 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. 20, 3. Summer 1984; Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. and Mesa, R.P. “Strategies for Coupling Schools: The Effective Schools Approach” NASSP Bulletin. 69, 478. February 1985. pp. 7-13.
23. See especially Carlberg, C. “The Testing Gaine: Maximizing the Irrelevant Factors” Noteworthy. Summer 1981. pp. 58-61; Madaus, G.F., Airasian, P.W. and Kellaghan, T. School Effectiveness: A Reassessment of the Evidence. New York. McGraw-Hill. 1980; 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. 86, 4. Summer 1985. pp. 615-641; Purkey, S.D. and Smith, M.S. “Effective Schools: A Review” Elementary School Journal. 83, 4. March 1983. pp. 427-452; Ralph, J.H. and Fennessey, J. “Science or Reform: Some Questions About the Effective Schools Model” Phi Delta Kappan. 64, 10. June 1983. pp. 689-694.
24. Cuban, L. “Transforming the Frog Into a Prince.” Op. cit.
25. Barr, R., Dreeben, R. and Wiratchai, N. How Schools Work.Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 1983; Herriot, R.E. and Muse, D.N. “Methodological Issues in the Study of School Effects” in Review of Research in Education. Kerlinger, F.N. ed. Itasca. Il. F.E. Peacock Publishers. 1972; Rowan, B. op. cit.
26. Rowan, B., Bossert, S.T. and Dwyer, D.C. “Research on Effective Schools: A Cautionary Note” Educational Researcher. 12, 4. April 1983.
27. Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. and Mitman, A. Op. cit.
28. Haertel, G.D. and Walberg, H.J. “Investigating An Educational Productivity Model” Evaluation in Education. 4. 1980. pp. 103-104; Walberg, H.J., and Shanahan, T. “High School Effects on Individual Students” Educational Researcher. 12, 7. August-September 1983. pp. 4-9.
29. At the time of the study, California had 1028 school districts - 648 elementary, 112 high school, and 268 unified. The scores for each school district in the state were coded as follows: 2 equals above expectancy band, 1 equals within expectancy band, and 0 equals below expectancy band. Three years scores, 1980-81 through 198283, in areas of reading, mathematics, and language arts were coded. Elementary schools take the CAP test in grade 3 and 6, high schools in grade 12, and unified districts in grades 3, 6, and 12. Elementary school districts could receive a maximum of 36 points - 2 grades x 3 subjects x 3 years x 2 expectancy points, high school 18 - 1 x 3 x 3 x 2, and unified 54 - 3x3x3x2. Of the 648 elementary districts, nine had scores of 36. Five of these were selected for the study; two were eliminated because of small size, one was dropped because two of the authors had worked as consultants in the district, and one turned out to be part of a unified district in actuality if not name. From the six high school districts with scores of 17 or 18, three were selected. Of the remaining three, two proved to be unified districts in practice and in the other the superintendent had just been fired. One of the two “unified in practice” districts here is the same as in the elementary sample. Four unified districts had scores of 46 or higher. Two of these were selected and two were eliminated because of financial constraints. Two other “unified in practice” districts were selected from the elementary and secondary lists to bring the total number of unified districts to 4 and the total number of districts to 12 - five elementary, three high school, and four unified.
30. Goetz, J. and LeCompte, M. Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. Orlando, Fl. Academic Press. 1984.
31. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. “Drawing Valid Meaning From Qualitative Data: Toward a Shared Craft” Educational Researcher. 13, 5. May 1984. pp. 20-30.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Goetz, J. and LeCompte, M. op. cit.
35. Bailey, K.D. Methods of Social Research. New York. Free Press. 1978; Black, J.A. and Champion, D.J. Methods and Issues in Social Research. New York. John Wiley and Sons. 1976.
36. Crowson, R.L., Hurwitz, E. Jr., Morris, V.C. and Porter-Gehrie, C. The Urban Principal: Discretionary DecisionMaking in a Large Educational Organization. Chicago. University of Illinois at Chicago. College of Education. March 1981; Deal, T.E. and Celotti, L.D. Loose Coupling and the School Administrator: Some Recent Findings. Stanford, Ca. Stanford University. Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching. 1977; Hannaway, J. and Sproull, L.S. op. cit; 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. 1975; Weick, K.E. “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems” Administrative Science Quarterly. 21. pp. 1-19.
37. Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. and Peterson, D.D. “An Exploratory Analysis of Effective School Districts” op. cit.
38. Cohen, M.D., March, J.G., and Olsen, J.P. “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice” Administrative Science Quarterly. 17. 1972. pp. 1-26; Hallinger, P. and Murphy, J. “Defining An Organizational Mission: Clarity and Persistence in Leader Behavior.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago. April 1985; March, J.G. “American Public School Administration: A Short Analysis” School Review, pp. 217250; Weick, K.E. op. cit.
39. Peterson, K.D. Mechanisms of Administrative Control in Educational Organizations: An Exploratory Study. Washington, DC. National Institute of Education. 1983.
40. Hannaway, J. and Sproull, L.S. op. cit.
41. Cohen, E.G. and Miller, R.H. op. cit.; Davis, M.R. and Stackhouse, E.A. “The Importance of Formal Appearances: The Implementation of Programs for the Evaluation of Elementary Schools and Teachers.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association. Sacramento. April 1977; Dornbusch. S. and Scott, W.R. Evaluation and the Exercise of Authority. San Francisco. Jossey Bass. 1975; McLaughlin, M.W. “Teacher Evaluation and School Improvement” Teachers College Record. 86, 1. Fall 1984. pp. 193206; Rosenlioltz, S.J. “Effective Schools: Interpreting the Evidence” American Journal of Education. 93, 2. May 1985. pp. 352-389.
42. Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. and Peterson, K.D. “Supervising and Evaluating Principals: Lessons From Effective School Districts” Educational Leadership, in press; Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. and Peterson, K.D. “The Administrative Control of Principals in Effective School Districts.” op. cit.
43. Cohen, M.D., March, J.E. and Olsen, J.P. op. cit.; Cohen, M.D. and Miller, J.G. op. cit.; March, J.G. “American Public School Administration: A Short Analysis” School Review. 86. February 1978. pp. 217-250.
44. Deal, T.E. and Celotti, L.D. op. cit.; March, J.G. op. cit.; Pitner, N.J. “Training of the School Administrator: State of the Art.” Occasional paper from the University of Oregon. Center for Educational Policy and Management, College of Education. Eugene. February 1982.
45. Berman, P. Improving School Improvement: A Policy Evaluation of the California School Improvement Program. Berkeley, Ca. Berman, Weiler Associates. November 1983; Berman, P. Improving School Improvement: A Policy Evaluation of the California School Improvement Program: Vol. 1. Berkeley, Ca. Berman, Weiler Associates. January 1984; Clark, D.L., Lotto, L.S. and Astuto, T.A. op. cit.; Fullan, M. “Implementing Educational Change: Progress At Last.” Paper prepared for a Conference on the Implications of Research on Teaching for Practice, Sponsored by the National Institute of Education. Warrenton, Va., February 1982.
46. Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. and Peterson, K.D. “An Exploratory Analysis of Effective School Districts.” op. cit.
47. Kimbrough, J. and Hill, P.T. Problems of Implementing Multiple Categorical Education Programs. Santa Monica Ca. Rand. September 1983.
48. See Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. and Mesa. R.P. op. cit.
49. See especially Duignan, P. op. Cit.; Hannaway, J. and Sproull, L.S. op. cit.; Larson, L.L., Bussom, R.S. and Vicars, W.M. op. cit.; Peterson, K.D. “Mechanisms of Administrative Control.” op. cit.; Pitner, N. op. cit.; Sproull, L.S. and Zubrow, J. “Performance Information in School Systems: Perspectives from Organizational Theory” Educational Administration Quarterly. 17. 1981. pp. 61-79.
50. Pitner, N. and Ogawa, R. Op. cit.; Sergiovanni, T.J., Burlingame, M., Coombs, F.D. and Thurston, P.W. Educational Governance and Administration. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice-Hall. 1980.
51. See Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., Weil, M. and Mitman, A. “Instructional Leadership: A Conceptual Framework” Planning and Changing. 14, 3. Fall 1983. pp. 137-149; Murphy, J., Weil, M., Hallinger, P. and Mitman, A. “Academic press: Translating High Expectations into School Policies and Classroom Practices” Educational Leadership. 40, 3. December 1982. pp. 22-26.
52. Cotton, K. and Savard, W.G. op. cit.; Hall, G.E. and Rutherford, W.L. “Three Change Facilitator Styles: How Principals Affect Improvement Efforts.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Canada. April 1983; Hallinger, P. and Murphy, J. “Assessing the Instructional Management Behavior of Principals” Elementary School Journal, in press; Hallinger, P. and Murphy, J. op. cit., Hallinger, P., Murphy, J., Weil, M., Mesa, R.P. and Mitman, A. “School Effectiveness: Identifying the Specific Practices and Behaviors for Principals” NASSP Bulletin. 67, 463. May 1983. pp. 83-91; Leithwood, K.A. and Montgomery, D.J. “The Role of the Elementary School Principal in Program Improvement” Review of Educational Reserch. 52, 3. Fall 1982. pp. 309-339; Shoemaker, J. and Fraser, H.W. “What Principals Can do: Some Implications From Studies of Effective Schooling” Phi Delta Kappan. 63, 2. November 1981. pp. 178-182; Stallings, J.A. and Mo hlman, G.G. School Policy, Leadership Style, Teacher Change, and Student Behavior in Eight Schools: Final Report. Mountain View, Ca. Stallings Teaching and Learning Institute. September 1981.
53. Deal, T.E. and Celotti, L.D. op. cit.-, Reeves, J.K. “Loose-Coupling and Elementary School Social Composition: The Organizational Cop-Out in Ghetto Education.” Unpublished manuscript. October 1982.
54. See Blau, P.M. and Scott, W.R. Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco. Chandler. 1962; Downs, A. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston. Little, Brown and Company. 1967; March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. Organizations. New York. John Wiley and Sons. 1958; Weber, M. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York. The Free Press. 1964.
55. Little, J.W. “Norms of Collegiality and Experimentation: Work Place Conditions of School Success” American Educational Research Journal. 19, 3. Fall 1982. pp. 325-340
56. Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A. Corporate Cultures. Reading, Ma. Add ison-Wesley. 1982; Firestone, W.A. and Wilson, B.L. “Using Bureaucratic and Cultural Linkages to Improve Instruction: The Principal's Contribution” Educational Administration Ouarterly. 21. Spring 1985. pp. 7-30.
57. Hart, A.W. and Ogawa, R.T. op. cit.
58. See March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. op. cit.; Simon, H.A. Administrative Behavior. New York. MacMillan. 1947.
59. Emery, F.F. and Trist, E.L. “The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments” Human Relations. 18. 1965. pp. 21-31; Terrebery, S. “The Evolution of Organizational Environments” Administrative Science Quarterly. 12. 1968. pp. 590-613; Thompson, J.D. Organizations in Action. New York. McGraw-Hill. 1967.
60. Murphy, J. et al. “Academic Press” op. cit.; Murphy, J., Weil, M., Hallinger, P. and Mitman, A. “School Effectiveness: A Conceptual Framework” The Educational Forum. 49, 3. Spring 1985. pp. 361374; Weil, M., Marshalek, B, Mitman, A., Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. and Pruyn, J. “Effective and Typical Schools: How Different Are They?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans. April 1984.
61. Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. and Peterson, K.D. “The Administrative Control of Principals in Effective School Districts” Op. cit.; Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. and Peterson, K.D. “An Exploratory Analysis of Effective Schools Districts” op. cit.; Murphy, J., Mesa, R.P. and Hallinger, P. “Creating Effective School Districts: Lessons From Practice Research, and National Reports” American Education. 20, 6. July 1984. pp. 13-14.
62. Hallinger, P. and Murhpy, J. “Instructional Leadership and School Socio-Economic Status: A Preliminary Investigation” Administrator's Notebook. 31, 5. 1985. pp. 1-4.