School principals at work: A distributed perspective

Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 87-110

  Spillane, James P ^a   Camburn, Eric M ^b   Pareja, Amber Stitziel ^a,c  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c National Institute for School Leadership (NISL)   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952164174     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203868539     Document Type: Chapter

References (19)

1. Bourdieu, P. (1981). Men and machines. In K. Knorr-Cetina & A.V. Cicourel (eds), Advances in social theory and methodology (pp. 304-317). London, UK: Routledge.
2. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press (R. Nice Trans; original work published 1980).
3. Camburn, E. & Han, S.W. (2006). Factors affecting the validity of teachers' reports of instructional practice on annual surveys (Working paper of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
4. Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347-373.
5. Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.
6. Firestone, W.A. (1989) Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 151-165.
7. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London, UK: Allen Lane.
8. Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 28(3), 317-338.
9. Heller, M.F. & Firestone, W.A. (1995) Who's in charge here? Sources of leadership for change in eight schools. Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 65-86.
10. Hilton, M. (1989). A comparison of a prospective diary and two summary recall techniques for recording alcohol consumption. British Journal of Addiction, 84, 1085-1092.
11. Lemmens, P., Knibbe, R., & Tan, F. (1988). Weekly recall and diary estimates of alcohol consumption in a general population survey. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 49, 131-135.
12. Lemmens, P., Tan, E., & Knibbe, R. (1992). Measuring quantity and frequency of drinking in a general population survey: A comparison of five indices. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 53, 476-486.
13. Parker, J. (2000). Structuration. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
14. Robinson, J.P. (1985). The validity and reliability of diaries versus alternative time use measures. In F.T. Juster & F.P. Stafford (eds), Time, goods, and well-being (pp. 63-92). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
15. Schwartz, J.F., & Stone, A.A. (1998). Strategies for analyzing ecological momentary data. Health Psychology, 17, 6-16.
16. Spillane, J.P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17. Spillane, J.P., Diamond, J.B., & Jita, L. (2003). Leading instruction: The distribution of leadership for instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(5), 533-543.
18. Stone, A. & Shiffman, S. (1994). Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in behavioral medicine. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 199-202.
19. Stone, A.A., Schwartz, J.E., Neale, J.M., Shiffman, S., Marco, C.A., Hickcox, M., & Paty, J. (1998). A comparison of coping assessed by ecological momentary assessment and recall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1670-1680.