|USFDC Home||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
1 of 22 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 9 Number 45October 30, 2001ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass, College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 2001, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education .The Elementary Principal/Superintendent Relationshi p as Perceived by Teachers and Its Effects on the Sch ool: A Case Study Comparison Catherine H. Glascock Ohio University Diane Taylor Louisiana State UniversityCitation: Glascock, C.H. and Taylor, D. (2001, Octo ber 30). The elementary principal/superintendent relationship as perceived by teachers and its effects on the school: A case study comparison, Education Policy Analysis Archives 9 (45). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n45.html.Abstract Despite more than a decade of research on bottom-up school change, the principal/ superintendent relationship continues to be studied primarily as a traditional flow of power from the t op down. There is little research that considers the proposition that power vested in principals can be exercised upwardly within the school distric t hierarchy in the form of independence from and influence on the supe rintendent. Given the lack of research on these phenomena, it is not surprising that we could find no studies that explore the effects of h ierarchical
2 of 22independence and influence on school climate. The p resent study investigates both. Two schools form the basis of th is comparative case study. The schools were chosen based on scores obta ined through the OCDQ and TAI instruments. The first school is selected for its high scores on both instruments and the second school is selected based on average scores on the OCDQ and the TAI Both schools are in the same school district and a brief description of that dis trict begins the discussion. Individual case study findings as well as a comparison of the two case studies follow. I. Hierarchical Independence and Influence According to Hoy and Miskel (1991), principals use hierarchical independence and influence within the formal structure of the di strict to give, various resources for the school. Hoy and Miskel define hierarchical independ ence as, "the extent to which administrators demonstrate their autonomy from supe riors" (p. 81). To illustrate, a principal exerts hierarchical independence from the superintendent when she decides to implement a major reform or instructional innovatio n, relying on her own expertise, knowledge, and ability to acquire resources rather than relying on guidance and resources from the superintendent or central office administrators (Fullan, Anderson, & Newton, 1986; Leithwood, 1988). Hoy and Miskel (1991) describe hierarchical influen ce as the ability of the principal to gain positive benefits for the school from the superintendent. Adapting from the above illustration, hierarchical influence is u sed when a principal persuades the superintendent to support a unique school program o r to provide additional resources to the school Hierarchical independence and influence, though imp ortant, can be difficult for a principal to exercise. As middle level a administra tor in a hierarchical organization, a principal simultaneously occupies a subordinate and superordinate position. Consequently, a principal must balance often-compet ing demands and expectations from the superintendent and teachers. Moreover, while bo th the superintendent and teachers value independent and influential action on the par t of the principal, they do so for different reasons. For the superintendent, independence and influence are valued when problems are resolved at the school level or when external resou rces are secured with little encumbrance to the district (Crowson & Morris, 1984 ). Independent or influential action that is inconsistent with the expectations of the s uperintendent or that creates problems for central office is viewed with a less sanguine e ve. Teachers, on the other hand, value independent and influential actions when these acti ons bring needed resources co the school, are consistent with the values held by the faculty (Porter & Lemon, 1988), or buffer the faculty from external demands and pressu res School Climate We propose that teachers, as prime beneficiaries of a principal's upward exercise of power, are uniquely positioned to observe the ef fects of a principal's use of hierarchical independence and influence. As teacher s observe this dynamic, according to Boyan (1988), their perceptions of school climate a re affected. Although there is little
3 of 22consensus concerning forces that mold school climat e, variables that have been studied include principal leadership (Kottcamp, Mulhern, & Hoy, 1987; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Taylor& Tashakkori, 1995), teacher morale (Pallas, 1988), and academic emphasis (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). Some researchers (Halpin, 1966; Hoy, Tarter, & Bliss, 1990) describe school climate as ranging from open to clo sed. Schools with an open climate operate with few rules or regulations while schools with a closed climate are hampered with restrictive rules and regulations and close su pervision (Hoy et al., 1990). These studies and others (e.g., Boyan, 1988) sugges t that school climate is a mediating factor in the academic achievement of stu dents, adding to its importance as a focus of educational research. As noted, we base th e definitions of our terms on Hoy and Miskel (1991). These authors defined school climate as the "relatively enduring quality of the school environment that is experienced by pa rticipants, affects their behavior, and is based on their collective perceptions of behavio r in schools" (Hoy & Miskel, 1991, p. 221).II. Limitations In our study, we consider teachers' impressions of principals' exercise of hierarchical independence and influence, and examin e the extent to which these impressions affect teachers' perceptions of school climate. At this point, it is necessary, to acknowledge some important limitations of our st udy. District size plays a role in shaping the relationship between the principal and superintendent. In small districts, because there are fewer levels of administration to separate a superintendent from principals (Crowson & Morris, 1985), the principal/ superintendent relationship is more direct and interactions more frequent than in large districts. Large districts are characterized by many administrative levels between a principal and the superintendent, creating indirect and often impersonal communicatio n between the two, thereby muting the relationship (Crowson & Morris, 1985; Boyan, 19 88). In order to enhance the chances of finding an effect, if there is one, our study occurred in a small, rural district and is unlikely to generalize to large or urban dis tricts. Similarly, elementary schools, because they are sma ller and structurally less complex than secondary schools, offer a better cont ext for initial explorations of teachers' perceptions of the principal/superintende nt relationship. Because our study occurred in at the elementary level, results may no t generalize to secondary schools. Finally with regard to limitations, the linkage bet ween teachers' perceptions of the principal/superintendent and their perceptions of s chool climate is indirect. Still, we assert that these perceptions are inherent in the c omplex reality of schools. Given the impact of school climate on student achievement, ex ploring the linkage between teachers' perceptions of the principal/superintende nt relationship and school climate merits study.III. Statement of Problem The teacher perceived power vested in principals in the form of independence from and influence on the superintendent may relate to teachers' perceptions of school climate as well. Given the lack of research on thes e phenomena, we explore the effects of hierarchical independence and influence on schoo l climate as perceived by teachers. This case study is an illustration of how this rela tionship is played out in practice. Determining how and why teachers value certain aspe cts of their principal's relationship with the superintendent allows knowledge to be gain ed about the functioning of schools
4 of 22and how schools can become more effective.IV. Method Our study uses case analysis to compare a typical s chool ~with a positive outlier, a research design recommended by effective schools re searchers (Teddlie &, Stringfield, 1993). Results reported here are part of a larger s tudy that took place in a southern state and investigated the effect of the hierarchical ind ependence and influence on school climate. For the larger study, sample districts and schools were selected on that criterion that both the superintendent and the principals had been in their current position for at least 3 years. This criterion gave the principals a nd their respective superintendent a chance to develop a relationship before the study d ata were collected. As noted above, all participating schools were at the elementary le vel and were comprised of grades kindergarten through five. To gather the data, all regular education teachers in these schools were asked to complete two questionnaires. To measure teachers' p erceptions of principal hierarchical independence and influence, the Teacher Attitude Inventory (Glascock, 1996 [TAI]), was developed. A panel of six experts was used to a nalyze possible items for the Teacher Attitude Inventory (TAI) survey developed. The experts are two professors i n educational administration, one professor in educat ional research, two principals, and one 12-year veteran teacher. Each expert was told t he purpose of the TAI survey and what each section is intended to measure. Modificat ions and changes were made to items based on the advice and opinions of these exp erts. The Teacher Attitude Inventory (TAI) includes 14 statements that measure teachers' perceptions of the principal's level of i ndependence from and influence with the superintendent. Independence is defined as "the ext ent to which administrators demonstrate their autonomy from superiors as they i nteract with teachers" (Hoy & Miskel, 1991). This independence from and influence with the superintendent is measured by a five point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree", with a response option of "don't know" i ncluded. Scoring is completed by reverse coding negative questions for independence and influence, and the summing the seven item scores. Each set of scores is aggregated to the school level and the average is generated so that there is one score for each schoo l. To assess school climate, teachers completed the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire Revised Elementary (Hoy, Tarter, & Kottcamp, 1991 [OCDQ-RE]). The OCDQ-RE measures school climate using two components. One component, principal behavior is comprised of three dimensions, including directive, supportive, and restrictive. Hoy et al. (1991) repo rt Cronbach's alphas of .95 to .80 for these dimensions. The second component of the OCDQRE, teacher behavior, also consists of three components, disengaged, collegial and intimate. Cronbach's alpha for these dimensions range from .90 to .75 (Hoy et al, 1991). For each dimension in both components, scores fall into one of five categories ranging from very low through average to yew high. The case studies reported here involve two schools that were selected using results from both questionnaires. As noted, one school was typical. In this school, teachers scored nearest the mean on both questionnaires. The other school, a positive outlier, was chosen because teachers scored farthest from the me an on both questionnaires. Serendipitously, both of these schools were located in the same district, permitting more meaningful comparisons. To gather data, both schools were visited for two d ays each. During this time, the
5 of 22principal and a random sample of teachers were inte rviewed. In addition, parents and ancillary personnel, such as the school nurse, were interviewed. A protocol explored the extent to which the superintendent played a role in the day-to-day life of the school; beliefs held by faculty and the principal about the relationship between the principal and superintendent; and the effect the relationship bet ween the principal and superintendent had, respectively, on teachers and principal on a t ypical day. In addition, information was gathered. The researcher spent time observing a nd having casual interactions in the halls, cafeteria, and on the playground. Interviews were held for half an hour to an hour with individuals and taped. Classes were observed a nd children were engaged in casual conversation. The researcher kept a running record through tape recordings during all sessions and observations. Over 200 pages of transc ribed notes and interviews were generated. In presenting the results, pseudonyms ar e used to ensure the confidentiality of participating schools and individuals.V. Results The case analyses reported below explore the relati onship between teachers' perceptions of principal hierarchical independence and influence and their perceptions of school climate. Findings for each school are presen ted separately, and include the results of the TAI (teacher perceptions of the principal's hierarchic al independence and influence) and OCDQ-RE (teacher perceptions of school climate), a brief c ontextual description of the school and professional staff, t he impressions of the teachers who were interviewed regarding (a) the principal's exer cise of hierarchical independence and influence and (b) the school's climate. Our discuss ion of the results concludes with a comparison of the two schools in terms of teachers' perceptions of principal hierarchical independence and influence and their perceptions of school climate. District Description The two schools are in the same district as noted, hence, we begin with a description of the district. The Jackson County sch ool district was once considered rural and poor, but now has a more exurban flavor and ser ves as a bedroom community for a nearby city. Over half of the population is high sc hool graduates and nearly 10% have college degrees (U.S. Census Bureau, 1990). Of the 17,000 students who attend the 8 schools in Jackson County, 94% are European America n, with 6% of the students describing themselves as African American or other.Greenbriar Elementary (typical school) The TAI score is 18.111 indicating that teachers have a ne utral to positive perception of the principal/superintendent relation ship. The Greenbriar Elementary scores in the average, low, and very low categories on the principal dimensions of supportive (495.258), directive (429.906) and restr ictive (397.032) of the OCDQ Scores are high in the collegial (586.357), very high in t he intimate (609.299), and average in the disengaged (497.619) dimensions. These scores i ndicate a school in which teachers perceive moderate levels of principal positive or n egative behaviors that impact their work life, teachers have good rapport with each oth er but teachers are somewhat disengaged from the workplace. This school is betwe en the engaged and disengaged climates described in the typology of climate devel oped by Hoy, Tarter, and Kottcamp (1991). However, while teachers reported good rappo rt among themselves, on the
6 of 22typology developed by Hoy et al. (1991), they tende d toward disengagement from the workplace. As mentioned previously, additional data were colle cted through interviews. At Greenbriar, interviews were conducted with the prin cipal, 3 teachers, a student teacher, 3 parent aides, and the school nurse. As will be seen these participants were uniformly positive about the principal. The school itself serves children from the working class community that it is located. Brickwork on the 30-year old building has faded to a grayish red color and the window trim is dull with age. Once inside the build ing, an orientation toward neatness and cleanliness is evident. Splashes of color from student artwork adorning classroom doors brighten the faded pastels of the hallways. C lassrooms are clean, though many are cluttered because there is not enough room to hold all the instructional materials, books, art supplies, and maps. One teacher explained, Wi th so many children, we have no room for instructional materials." The principal's office is small but professional in appearance. Walls display many citations and awards earned by the school. Like the classrooms, the principal's desk is cluttered as if too many things require her attention. In the cramped outer office, where the secretary sits, an up-to-date computer stands out against the other office equipment which old and wo rn. Most of the 450 children who attend Greenbriar walk to school. School demographics reflect the district, with 9'4% of the students describing themselves as white, 6% as black, and 35% as eligible for free-or -reduced-price lunch. According to the Food and Nutrition Bureau of the state Departme nt of Education (1995), Greenbriar is a low poverty school. As might be expected given the demographics, the students do reasonably well on standardized tests, performing a bove the district, state, and national median percentile for fourth graders on the Califor nia Achievement Test. Also consistent with the demographics, children wer e well behaved and quietly involved themselves in their assignments. In one of the few instances when disciplinary action was required, two children were sent to stan d in the hallway just outside the classroom door. The teacher of the offending studen ts explained they had been removed for talking out of turn, noting, "Children are not allowed to disrupt classroom activities." There appeared to be a genuine friendship among the teachers and between the faculty and the principal. One teacher noted that, "Many of the teachers and the principal play Keno once a week, and this year, as soon as sc hool ends, several of the teachers and the principal are going on vacation together." In addition, Greenbriar enjoyed strong parental sup port and many parent volunteers. During the 2 days of observation, 20 pa rents were observed assisting teachers in the classroom or with clerical chores, such as duplicating papers. These parents sincerely liked the teachers and the princi pal, and felt the school operated well. One commented, "The principal maintains discipline and the children know and follow the rules so this school runs really well." Curiously, of all the people interviewed, the schoo l nurse was the only one who mentioned the children's intellectual growth withou t prompting from the interviewer, noting Itis very important to give the children a chance t o learn as much as possible." Neither the teachers nor the parent aides offered s uch statements. Moreover, when asked directly about the students' learning, teachers and parents unanimously responded "Discipline is very strict in the school and the pr incipal does not allow children to interrupt the learning of others." The recurring th eme that surfaced during the interviews was that discipline was the most important objectiv e of the school. Asked if discipline was important of itself or as a prerequisite for le arning, one teacher said "Discipline is just as important as knowledge."
7 of 22 The principal, Ms. Cook, like the faculty, is a whi te female. Now in her late fifties, Ms. Cook has been an educator in the distr ict for over 20 years, the last 4 of which have been as principal at Greenbriar. She is professional in dress and demeanor with an air of strength about her; yet, she smiles easily. Ms. Cook was very open to questions and had no hesitancy in offering opinions about teachers, children, the school, parents, or the district staff. She was quite proud of the staff' rapport and mentioned the Keno nights and the upcoming vacation as evidence. This network of friendship was perhaps more important because of the contrast it o ffered to the prior principal. The prior principal was a male who the teachers viewed as aut horitarian and unfriendly. Teachers seemed to appreciate that Ms. Cook went out of her way to establish good communication with them and to include them in grou p activities. Her more cordial demeanor did not hinder school operations, however. It was mentioned the children's intellectual growth without prompting from the inte rviewer, noting that "It is very important to give the children a chance to learn as much as possible.' Neither the teachers nor the parent aides offered such statemen ts. Moreover, when asked directly about the students' learning, teachers and parents unanimously responded "Discipline is very strict in the school and tile principal does n ot allow children to interrupt the learning of others." The recurring theme that surfa ced during the interviews was that discipline was the most important objective of the school. Asked if discipline was important of itself or as a prerequisite for learni ng, one teacher said, "Discipline is just as important as knowledge." As suggested above, Ms. Cook did not mention studen ts' academic or social performance until ask specifically. Even then, she did not speak of test scores, though it will be remembered that the schools scored above th e state and district average median percentile, and when pressed about student behavior Ms. Cook stated firmly that children "are here to learn. No child can interfere with the learning others." It was as if the children were not the purpose of the school, bu t a separate entity, not integral to the functioning of the school. The principal's view of the superintendent was fair ly distant. She did not indicate any personal relationship or friendliness, but ther e was a sense of professional respect and loyalty. Ms. Cook is one of the district person nel who are aligned with the superintendent, as opposed to the more conservative members of the school board. According to Ms. Cook, she supported the superinten dent because he established good procedures, tried to respond to individual school n eeds, and addressed problems quietly. Ms. Cook's description of her relationship with the superintendent indicated limited interaction between them that might suggest a low level of principal influence with the superintendent. That type of interaction d oes not appear to exist between this principal and the superintendent. At the same time, Ms. Cook did not any negative feelings about As to disciplinary actions, very little is observed One incident occurred while the researcher was in the main/secretary's office. A ch ild was sent to the office during the observation period for disciplinary reasons. The se cretary seemed very familiar with the student, asking him "Why are you here this time? Si t down and the principal will see you when she has the time." At another point, two child ren were observed standing in the hallway, next to a classroom door. They had been re moved from their classrooms for talking out of turn. As one teacher explained, "Chi ldren are not allowed to disrupt classroom activities." School Climate The school was visited in the late spring of the ye ar. End of the year activities,
8 of 22such as special topics in classes where all curricu lum needs have been met, assemblies, and parties have begun, yet there is a quiet, order ly feel to the school. Children are following an established routine, both as to activi ties and expected behavior. Before the first bell of the day, they are cheerful, talkative and happy. Recess is physically active (running, climbing, and jumping) with the normal ye lling, laughing, and small upsets that occur with children at play. End of the day ac tivities are boisterous as the children become excited about going home. The teachers appear calm, their demeanor, speech an d body language indicate quiet confidence in the overall condition of the sc hool. Those teachers interviewed stated that everything is in order and on schedule because the children cause no extreme difficulties, the curriculum is being completed on time and the paper work is complete. Teachers are asked how they feel when contemplating the start of the day. One said, "Everything runs smoothly here, the children know the rules." Every teacher response given, whether about activities, climate o r environment, expresses pleasure at the level of discipline in the school. It was the o nly response given related to the children. There was no bragging about the children' s test scores, awards, and innovations in the classroom or a specific child who has excell ed in some way. Teachers were also asked what they consider a good day at school. One stated that, "Any day is good when the children are quiet and everyone is in a good mo od." The parent aides indicate that they are pleased wit h the school. Discipline is maintained, their efforts as aides are appreciated and even the one teacher who is demanding is manageable. The school is functioning quietly. As to whether the superintendent is active in the d ay-to-day operations of the school, the teachers responded that he is not consi dered an active part of the school. This situation indicates that the superintendent is not a close controller of the principal's activities, as far as the teachers are aware. Teach ers did not offer any information about the principal's influence with the superintendent a ffecting the day-to-day operations of the school either. No connections appeared evident to the teachers interviewed that the principal/superintendent relationship played a role in shaping the climate of the school. When interacting among themselves, the children lau gh and talk with smiling faces and positive body language. In the classroom, their faces are mostly neutral and their bodies are slumped in their desks. No teacher was observed making classroom presentations with an excited voice or body languag e. The teachers appeared to be reciting lessons. There appears to be a missing con nection between teachers and children, especially during class time. Perceived Principal/Superintendent Relationship. Teachers at GREENBRIAR base their opinions of the p rincipal's relationship with the superintendent on two factors: resources provid ed to the school and the principal's support for the superintendent over the school boar d's conservative members. All teachers interviewed are aware of the discord betwe en the superintendent and the board; they are aware also of the principal's loyalty to t he superintendent. The principal has made her position clear in a staff meeting. The teachers feel that the school is receiving adeq uate resources, yet they are aware of the district's financial difficulties. Whi le the teachers want more supplies and desire more computer equipment, they seem satisfied that all that could be done is being done. The teachers state that the principal is doin g her best in trying to get more from the superintendent, yet seem unaware of how she is doin g this task. As to the superintendent's role in the school, it is viewed a s distant at best, if not non-existent. Most teachers could not remember if the superintend ent had come to the school during
9 of 22the year. One teacher commented that, "He has more important things to do than come see us." The principal's influence on the superintendent is viewed as difficult to ascertain by teachers. Teachers stated that, "Getting supplie s are the only way we can tell if the principal can move the superintendent." Teachers do not perceive influence in any concrete fashion as a form of power on the part of the principal. The ability of the principal to influence the superintendent is seen a s too invisible to teachers. The concept of independence is easier for the teach ers to discuss. The teachers interviewed believe that the principal is independe nt of the superintendent and makes most decisions herself. The teachers believe that t he principal follows district guidelines and does not give the superintendent reasons to clo sely monitor the school or the principal. The teachers' point agrees with the rese arch (Crowson & Morris, 1985) that describes principal strategies for maintaining or o btaining independence from the central office. Crowson and Morris (1985) describe principa ls being aware that the superintendent and central office will give greater latitude to principals who do not make trouble for the central office. This tacit understa nding between principals and the central office is part of the informal method used to contr ol district life. Summary. Greenbriar is an elementary school in a poor distri ct, which has financial problems and leadership tensions as well. While there is a g eneral awareness of the leadership tension, the awareness does not appear to cause gre at stress in the teachers or the school in general. The teachers appear to be able to isola te themselves from the district level tensions. The school functions in a traditional manner, with discipline being the main objective of teachers, parents and principal. There is consensus among the adults that the school runs well. The teachers' comments appear to show a concentration on creating a pleasant work environment for themselves. The prese nt principal has not been in place for a lengthy tenure so it would be of interest to follow this school and see if any changes develop which might demonstrate any awakeni ng to potential problems. Teachers appear to value their principal for sharin g the same outlook on the mission of the school that is discipline above all else. The teachers also value personal friendships with the principal. There does not appe ar to be any overt awareness on the part of teachers about the principal/superintendent relationship. Teachers do not indicate any belief that the princi pal is influential with the superintendent, rather the teachers appear to have no perceptions about that aspect of the relationship. The only indication that even hints a t influence is that teachers feel an adequate amount of resources are available for the school. Independence is also rather vague for these teachers but somewhat stronger than influence. The teachers appear to believe that because there is no evidence of interf erence in school activities by the superintendent, the principal must be independent o f the superintendent to a high degree. As with influence, the teachers show only vague int erest or awareness in the principal/superintendent relationship. Rather, teac hers appear to be centered on the relationships among themselves and with the princip al only. The possibility of independence and influence being interwoven is not apparent. Waterfall Elementary (high scoring school) The TAI score is 23.737 indicating that the teachers have a positive perception of the principal/superintendent relationship On the OCDQ the high elementary school
10 of 22Waterfall scores are in the very high category on t he principal dimension of supportive (699.814), average in the directive dimension (510. 938), and very low in the restrictive dimension (306.581). Scores are very high in the co llegial (673.457) and intimate (672.570) dimensions and very low in the disengaged (355.079) dimension. This indicates a school in which teachers perceive high levels of principal positive behaviors and low levels of negative behavior which impacts t eacher work life; teachers have good rapport with each other and are actively engaged in their work. Waterfall is an elementary school, serving grades K -5 plus special education classes. There are 383 children and 26 faculty memb ers. All the children are white as are the teachers (AFSR, 1994). Waterfall has 27.5% of t heir classes in the 1-20 range and the rest of the classes in the 21-26 range. Student attendance (96%) is also better than the district average (95.45%). CRT results show the children to be scoring higher than the district and state average. Waterfall places fourth out of 18 district elementary schools on the CRT for grade three; and places fifth out of 18 district el ementary schools on the CRT for grade five. CAT results for the fourth grade place fourth in the district in overall performance and well above the district, the state, and the nat ional median percentile (PPDCR, 1994). Waterfall is located in the rural, southern part of the district. The school is located in a curve of a secondary country road. Across the road from the school is a small hardware store. There are no neighborhoods, houses or commercial entities (other than the one mentioned) within half of a mile of the sch ool. This part of the district consists of citizens who are considered to be poorer than th e people in the northern two thirds of the district. Most of the population in the souther n third is considered transient. Waterfall is over thirty years old., simple in desi gn and consists of two faded red brick buildings and a modular cafeteria. Since the building is on a curve of a secondary, rural road that has been the sight of several accid ents, attempts have been made to reinforce the chain link fence surrounding the prop erty. The front drive where buses and cars dropped off children has a courtyard appeal wi th three large trees shadowing the pavement and the front of the buildings. Artwork do ts the classroom windowpanes. The interior of the school is spotless. The janitor starts polishing the floor as soon as the children begin the first class. Children's a rtwork is arranged beside the classroom doors and the colors of the walls are pastel and co ol to the eye. The school is well lit and not cluttered with boxes, supplies or equipment. Th e cafeteria is spotless with the chairs and tables wiped clean and ready for children. Ther e is new equipment purchased recently visible in the kitchen area. The classrooms have neat cupboards to store supplie s and there appears to be plenty of space for the children to move comfortabl y. The desks are widely spaced and there appears to be plenty of room the children to move around comfortably. The building is relatively old but inside the classroom s the age does not seem apparent. Instead the materials and furniture appear sturdy, up to date and useful. The children are transported to school by bus and c ar. The children are from agricultural and working class families with income s averaging below $30,000 (U.S. Census Bureau). Most of the children are dressed in clean but faded clothes with some of the clothes being too big or small. Thirty-four percent of the children qualified for the Breakfast program (Food and Nutrition Bureau, Louis iana Department of Education) putting Waterfall in the moderately poor category o f schools. It should be noted that although there is a category break between the two schools, only one percentage point separates the schools in the measure of poverty. Morning activities are boisterous (laughing and soc ializing loudly) and there are many interactions among teachers and children. Thes e interactions include socializing
11 of 22and movement around the hallways, asking questions of teachers, receiving reassurance from teachers as to the day's activity. The childre n are observed quietly working in classes, helping each other and asking questions of their teachers. The children have smiles and positive body language such as sitting u p straight, leaning forward and actively seeking inclusion by raising their hands. All 26 teachers are white females who are local res idents except for four from a nearby city who drive in each day. Thirty-five perc ent of the teachers hold at least a Master's degree and one holds a Ph.D. This percenta ge places the school above the district average but below the state average (PPDCR 1994). The principal strongly encourages, both verbally and with financial suppor t, those teachers who wish to pursue professional development activities. Teachers are t aking advantage of these opportunities. Two-day visit, five teachers are interviewed. Two t hemes emerge in these discussions. One theme is that children are the fir st priority of teachers and the principal. Each teacher interviewed mentioned the children, le arning and the social needs of the children as their main concern and interest. The se cond theme is the teachers' enthusiasm for working with children. The teachers are enthusi astic about the children, future professional development, the principal's role in t he school and each other. One teacher, Teacher A, who moved to the school from a large, ur ban school district in Texas, is most enthusiastic. Teacher A readily shared her ideas ab out the children, the teachers and the principal. Teacher A feels the school functions wel l because "the principal's personality and friendliness directly influence the attitudes o f both teachers and children." Another interviewee, a third grade teacher, Teacher B, expressed her concerns about the children, stating, "These children often come from broken homes and many times they don't know where they will be sleeping t hat night. This school is their only stability." Teacher B is most concerned about the c hildren as people and feels the atmosphere of the school helps these children cope with the stress they have at home. Teacher B stated that "children need a nurturing pr esence in their lives and unfortunately we are the only ones who give it to them sometimes" A kindergarten teacher stated that the principal's willingness to approach the superintendent about new techniques for "hands on m anipulatives" has improved the learning experience of her students. This kindergar ten teacher feels that the principal has brought many new ideas to the school during the fiv e years she has been there and also appreciates the principal's continued support for w orkshops and seminars. "The workshops are very important and when we go out of town for one, we try to save the money for travel so we can spend it on supplies for the children," she explained. The principal is a white female in her late forties or early fifties. The principal had been a teacher in the district for almost twenty ye ars before moving to WATERFALL three years previously. She is very open and friend ly, offering to assist the researcher in any possible way. No visible sign of stress are evi dent in the teachers at these interruptions. The teachers act as if the interrupt ion were a normal occurrence. The teachers have been prepared for the arrival of the researcher. The principal has given all the staff nametags, telling the researcher it will make the process friendlier. The principal expressed pride about the school in t hree ways. First, the children are cared for both emotionally and physically and a good learning environment is provided for them. Second, the principal is proud o f her teachers because they are willing to improve their professional skills and ar e actively pursuing further educational opportunities. The principal stated "I try to provi de funds for any teacher who wants to attend workshops that improve their teaching and br ing new techniques to the classroom." Third, the principal is impressed by th e community dedication to the school.
12 of 22An example of that dedication is the group of five women who run the library for the school. Not one of the five women has a child in th e school, but they want to perform this service for their community. The principal sta ted "This community ownership of the school rubs off on the attitude of teachers and stu dents alike." The principal is also proud of the instructional ch oices made by the school staff. In the previous year, the principal offered the teache rs a choice of either a librarian or physical education teacher for a new staff position The teachers decided that the five women running the library performed well so they ch ose the physical education teacher. Two things are significant about this event. First, the principal did not make the choice, she allowed the teachers to make the choice. Second the reason for the physical education choice was predicated on the rather poor physical condition and coordination of many of the children. In other words, the teache rs make choices based on the immediate needs of the children. As the principal d escribed it, "Teachers in this school care deeply for the children's well being, both men tal and physical." This principal has a professional and personal rela tionship with the superintendent. She taught his children and knows t he superintendent as a parent. The principal is very active in the district, serving a s president of the district principal's association and working closely with the central of fice to find resources for her school. The principal said, "I bother them to death and the y give me some of what I want just to get rid of me." School Climate The school was visited in the spring of the year. T he hallways are quiet and everyone, teachers and children alike, are busily e ngaged in learning activities. No discipline problems are noticed. A general atmosphe re of cooperation exists. When teachers were asked how they approach each day one responded that, "coming to school is fun, I really get excited abou t seeing the children." All the comments were positive. The teachers feel relaxed a nd comfortable with their school. When asked what a good day at school is like, teach ers offer smiles and say "A good day is when everyone learns." "When the children come t o school and can learn because they are not hungry and home was quiet the night before. "When there is laughter and we get that a lot here." One teacher offered her curriculum choices as an ex ample of how the principal allows creativity in the classroom. At the end of t he spring term, this teacher works with the children on a crafts approach to Louisiana cult ure. "I have the children make different types of maps using beans native to the s tate for materials. I bring in Cajun storytellers, singers, and even a politician or two to speak with the children." Her classroom hums along and buzzes with activities. Th e teacher moves from one group of children to another, offering comments and answerin g questions. As she tells the story, she smiles and her eyes twinkles, "The children can laugh, talk, and learn all at the same time." WATERFALL teachers hold the same views as GREENBRIA R teachers about the superintendent. The teachers really only perceive t he superintendent through the principal. The principal is perceived as funneling the superintendent input to the school and because the teachers feel supported in their ef forts, the superintendent is perceived as having an indirectly positive effect on the scho ol. The principal is perceived by the teachers as having a good relationship with the sup erintendent, both formal and informal. The formal relationship is demonstrated t hrough the principal's high profile with the central office and her ability to receive what the teachers perceive as special attention for the school. The teachers believe that this situation is another demonstration
13 of 22of the positive nature of their school. Three themes emerge about climate based on observat ions and interviews. First, children are the focus of school activities and the principal and teachers work to give the school a conducive learning atmosphere. Second, the principal succeeds in building an air of professional energy about teacher growth bec ause growth is viewed as important to enhance the abilities of teachers. Third, the pr incipal creates an aura of efficiency and effectiveness by providing resources for the childr en and teachers. The teachers perceive their principal as having positive influence with t he superintendent which has proven beneficial for their school by providing resources, including funds for professional growth and classroom needs such as the computer lab The teachers also believe that positive results have grown from the principal's ab ility to act independently of the superintendent. This independence has been displaye d by the principal being allowed to incorporate new curriculum designs in the classroom that are not necessarily in line with district policy. The teachers believe that the prin cipal was able to accomplish this task because the superintendent gave her greater indepen dence because of the superintendent's trust in the principal's abilities Perceived Principal/Superintendent Relationship Teacher responses at WATERFALL demonstrate only vag ue awareness of the principal's relationship with the superintendent. T he teachers know of the principal's previous history with the superintendent and that s he is able to speak with the superintendent more often than would be generally e xpected. Teachers also know how hard the principal works to gain resources from the central office. Unlike GREENBRIAR teachers, these teachers do not mention the antagonism between the school board and the superintendent. Either it is r emoved from their immediate focus or the teachers do not think it appropriate for discus sion. Teachers explain that their school is receiving mor e resources than other schools in the district because of the efforts of the princ ipal. One stated, "The principal is constantly thinking of new ways to move the superin tendent toward new curriculum and innovative programs." A kindergarten teacher is par ticularly vocal on this issue. She said, "Without the principal's support I would neve r have gone to the workshops and learned about new ways to stimulate my slow learner ." As stated in relationship to climate, the teachers feel that the principal is ab le to have great influence with the superintendent. The principal is also able to act i ndependently because the superintendent trusts her judgment. For example, th e principal is allowed to modify curriculum in the school rather than strictly follo w district policy, as mention in the climate section. As to a role for the superintendent in the school, the teachers do not see it as direct. His role, as explained by one teacher, "is to manage finances, talk to the board and provide the schools what they need." The superi ntendent's role is viewed as being indirect and funneled through the principal. The pr incipal is the link between the school and the outside world. As with GREENBRIAR teachers, WATERFALL teachers are vague about many aspects of the principal/superinte ndent relationship. However, WATERFALL teachers appear to view their pr incipal as being very influential with the superintendent. The personal n ature of the relationship is given as one reason for this success (Hart, 1993). WATERFALL teachers appear to be aware of and value the principal's hierarchical independence and influence. The teachers believe that the principal's ability to act independently i s a sign of influence with the superintendent. The principal's independence is val ued as a resource by the
14 of 22 WATERFALL teachers. Summary WATERFALL functions in a participative type of admi nistration. The WATERFALL principal gives the teachers a great deal of autonomy and allows teachers to participate in school wide decisions. There is c onsensus among the WATERFALL teachers that the school is working well. One teach er said, "Things run smoothly here and the children are learning." Based on interviews there is a united goal for WATERFALL and that goal is to help the children lea rn. Attaining this goal is being accomplished in three ways: teachers and the princi pal work to create a positive learning environment for the children; teachers are being en couraged to grow professionally for their personal benefit and the benefit of the child ren; and resources are found by the principal to enhance the learning environment. This much can be deduced from the teachers remarks, the principal proves to be influential by providing resources for the benefit of the school. The principal is also able to act independently about such matters as curricul um. The principal is able to give the teachers latitude to try new curriculum approaches. The teachers view this as independence on the part of the principal as benefi cial to the school. From the teachers' viewpoint both hierarchical independence and influe nce are perceived within the principal/superintendent relationship.Comparison of Greenbriar and Waterfall Related toPrincipal/Superintendent Relationship and School Cl imate as Perceived by the Teachers When comparing schools, it is important to ask the same types of questions and look for the same types of situations and informati on. True comparisons can then be made. Nuances and specific differences are discover ed and play an important role. While no attempt was made to choose schools in the same d istrict, the situation occurred and allowed the researcher to make more in depth compar isons since the schools share the same superintendent. There are differences in the OCDQ dimension and TAI scores (see Table 1) that offer a beginning point for a discuss ion of the two schools. The qualitative section on the present research offers greater insi ght into the differences recognized by the OCDQ and the TAI.Table 1 Case Studies: Comparison of OCDQ and TAI Scores, Demographic Information, and Academic Tests Results Between the Greenbriar and Waterfall Elementary Sch oolsItem GreenbriarWaterfall OCDQ dimension scoresSupportive495.3699.8Directive429.9510.9
15 of 22 Restrictive397.0306.6Collegial586.4673.5Intimate609.3672.6Disengaged497.6355.1TAI 18.123.7 Student Population450383Faculty Size3226Student Attendance95.7396%Suspensions4.43%.69%CRT-Grade 3 (Language/Mathematics)96/9798/100CRT Scores-Grade 5 (Language/Mathematics) 84/9194/98 CAT Scores-Grade 4 Median Percentile 69.572.7 Principal Principals at the two schools differ in many ways. The two most important deal with the mission of the school and norms for the pr ofessional level of teachers. At GREENBRIAR, the mission is to maintain a quiet, wel l-disciplined student body that does not disrupt the teachers' work environment. Th e principal said, "No child is allowed to disrupt class." While at WATERFALL, the mission is to provide a nurturing learning environment for the children. This difference betwe en the two principals' results in a teacher centered environment at GREENBRIAR and a ch ild-centered environment at WATERFALL. The second difference deals with the professional d evelopment of teachers. The principal or teachers at GREENBRIAR did not mention professional development and when asked, the principal replied, "the school year is too busy for the teachers already so I leave that decision up to individual teachers". A t WATERFALL, the principal finds seminars, workshops and other opportunities for the teachers to grow professionally and publicizes these events to her teachers. The WATERF ALL principal actively recruits teachers to attend the events and finds incentives, both financial (district and private) and emotional, to entice the teachers.
16 of 22 Another difference is worth noting. The WATERFALL p rincipal has good rapport with the superintendent that appears to give her gr eater access and a greater willingness to interact with the central office for obtaining r esources. This personal relationship between the principal and the superintendent appear s to be a significant contributor to the principal's success in obtaining resources.School Climate In both schools, the teachers state that they are s atisfied with the psychological feel of their school, yet there are telling differe nces. GREENBRIAR teachers appear satisfied with the status quo while WATERFALL teach ers are eager to use new ideas and approaches to education. GREENBRIAR appears to be ruled by a need for discipline while WATERFALL appears to be ruled by t he children's needs. It is as if GREENBRIAR principal, teachers and parents view the children only in terms of how the children affect the adults in the school. On th e other hand, WATERFALL appears to be concerned with the children's needs before any o thers. At WATERFALL discipline is one of many tools helping to create a good learning environment for the children. Resources, new ideas, innovations in curriculum cho ices and nurturing of the whole child are just as important tools.Perceived Principal/Superintendent Relationship Neither GREENBRIAR nor WATERFALL teachers state any knowledge about the principal/ superintendent relationship beyond t he principal's ability to garner resources for their school and act independently. G REENBRIAR teachers are aware of their principal's support for the superintendent ov er the school board but appear unaffected by the situation. WATERFALL teachers are aware of their principal's personal relationship with the superintendent and v alue that relationship in terms of influence (resource allocations) and independence ( curriculum changes). This finding moves in concert with those items on t he TAI that deal with influence as the principal's ability to gather resources for the benefit the school. At the same time, the WATERFALL principal demonstrates independence i n decision making about curriculum materials and new instructional approach es. WATERFALL teachers perceive both hierarchical independence and influence togeth er.VI. Conclusion One theme emerges from these two case studies. GREE NBRIAR and WATERFALL staffs view the missions of their school differently. At GREENBRIAR, the staff expresses their mission as a concern for their work environment and that the school maintains "good discipline." The mission at WATERFALL is to provide a good learning environment for the children. At GREENBRIA R learning is secondary to discipline and at WATERFALL learning is the number one priority. Climate is perceived differently because of the GREENBRIAR tea chers differ in what they value from the WATERFALL teachers. The WATERFALL teachers value a climate that is conducive to learning and nurturing children; GREEN BRIAR teachers value a climate that is conducive to a smooth working situation for them. Specific to the present study, indications of hiera rchical independence and influence are very different at the two schools. At GREENBRIAR, teachers appear to be
17 of 22unaware of any direct relationship between their pr incipal and the superintendent, other than the formal, organizational relationship. GREEN BRIAR teachers do not voice any awareness of principal influence with the superinte ndent, other than receiving necessary resources at an adequate level. The principal at GR EENBRIAR is considered to be in charge of the school and the superintendent is not seen as an interruptive force that indicates some independence on the part of the prin cipal. That independence is not overtly displayed though; rather the teachers almos t view the school as an island that is semi-detached from the rest of the world. The displ ay of independence is an almost passive, caused more by circumstances than by actio n. The climate of GREENBRIAR is good for teachers and principals, in their view. But that view is very narrow, as if the teachers an d principal are wearing blinders. The teachers and principal do not consider the children in their scope of understanding what their school is. If the teachers are happy in their personal relationships with each other and the principal, then all must be well, according to the teachers. This finding places the teachers' perceptions of the principal/superint endent relationship and organizational climate in perspective. The principal/superintenden t relationship and climate, when viewed in isolation, offer evidence about their pos sible connection. These two elements are not the only elements needed to form a good lea rning environment for children. Bossert (1982) and Duckworth (1984) both place the principal and climate in mediating positions, not major causality positions for studen t learning. The missing component is the children. This develop ment showcases the limitations of research that does not include the p erceptions of all organizational groups. By leaving the children out, the research is limite d in the ability to fully understand the true nature of the school climate. The teachers do believe that the principal directly affects the climate of their school. This is demons trated through the comments about smooth operations and lack of problems with discipl ine at the school. The problem is not so much that the climate is disengaged or closed, r ather the problems is at the mission level of organizations. These teachers and the prin cipal are not motivated by children's needs, rather they are motivated by personal needs and there is no apparent dissatisfaction with that situation. As to connections between hierarchical independence and influence and climate, the GREENBRIAR teachers appear to value the princip al's independence and link it to the smooth running of the school. The smooth runnin g appears is the GREENBRIAR teachers' perception of their school climate. The G REENBRIAR teachers are happy in their workplace and GREENBRIAR teachers have positi ve feelings about their school climate. This finding does not agree with the resul ts of the quantitative study. WATERFALL is a very different situation. WATERFALL teachers view their principal's relationship with the superintendent as dynamic, personal, and professional. WATERFALL teachers view the principal as actively s eeking both independence and influence. Independence is represented through curr iculum changes that are not in keeping with district requirements. Obtaining resou rces demonstrate influence in abundance in the teachers' view. The WATERFALL teac hers believe that their school gets more materials and equipment and receive these resources quicker than other schools in the district. WATERFALL teachers attribu te this situation directly to their principal's dynamic and multifaceted relationship w ith the superintendent. The relationship is seen as both personal and professio nal since the principal taught the superintendent's children. The climate at WATERFALL is open, dynamic, and ener getic. Teachers and principal alike are motivated by the children's nee ds. WATERFALL teachers actively examine new methods of instruction, new curricula, new resource materials, and share
18 of 22with each other the children's successes. The WATER FALL principal actively encourages the professional growth of her teachers, both financially and emotionally. The WATERFALL teachers view the principal/ superint endent relationship as being one of the primary reasons for the principal's success in improving the school and creating the school's positive climate.ReferencesAnderman, E. M. & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation a nd schooling in the middle grades. Review of Education Research. 64 (2), 287-309. Andrews, J.H.M (1965). School organizational climat e: Some validity studies. Canadian Educational and Research Digest 5 317-3 34. Blau, P.M. (1974). On the nature of organizations New York: John Wiley & Sons. Blau, P.M. & Scott, W.R, (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach San Francisco: Chandler.Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, D. C., Rowan, B. & Lee, G. V (1982). The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly 18 (3), 34-64. Boyan, N. J. (Ed.) (1988). Handbook of research in educational administration NewYork: Longman.Cook, K. S., Emerson, R. M., Gilmore, M. R., & Yama gishi, T. (1983). The distribution of Power in exchange networks: Theory and experimen tal results. American Journal of Sociology 89 (2), 275-305. Crow, G. M. (1990). Central office influence on the principal's relationship with teachers. Administrator's Notebook, 34 (1), 310-331. Crowson, R. L. & Morris, V. C. (1985). Administrati ve control in large-city school systems: An investigation in Chicago. Educational Administration Quarterly. 21 (4), 51-70.DeVellis, R. F. (1991 ). Scale development: Theory and applications Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.Duckworth, K. (1984). Specifying determinants of teacher and principal wo rk Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy and Management, U niversity of Oregon. Eccles, J. S. & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environme nt fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In R. E. Ames & C Ames (Eds.) Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139-186). New York: Academic. French, J. P. P., Jr. & Raven, B. (1960). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.). Group dynamics: Research and Theory New York: Harper & Row. Goldring, E. B. (1993). Principals, parents, and ad ministrative superiors. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20 (1), 93-117.
19 of 22Gorsuch, R. L. (1974). Factor analysis Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company. Hart, A. (1993). Principal succession: Establishing leadership in sc hools Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.Halpin, A. W. & Croft, D. B. (1963). The organizational climate of schools Chicago: University of Chicago.Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (1991). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice Fourth edition. New York: Random House. Hoy. W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991) Open schools/healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Kalis, M. C. (1980). Teaching experience, its effec t on school climate, teacher morale. NASSP Bulletin, 64 (35), 89-102. Keeler, B. T. & Andrews, J. H. M. (1963). The leade r behavior of principals, staff morale and productivity. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 9 (3), 179-190. Kimpston, R. D. & Sonnabend, L. C. (1975). Public s econdary schools: The interrelationship between organizational health and innovativeness and between organizational health and staff characteristics. Urban Education, 10 27-45. Koff, R., Laffey, J., Olson, G., & Cichon, D. (1979 -80). Stress and the school administrator. Administrators' Notebook, 28 (9). Licata, J. W. & Willower, D. J. (1975). Student bri nkmanship and the school as a social system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 11 1-14. Louis, K. S. (1989). The role of the school distric t in school improvements. In M. Holmes, K. Leithwood & D. Musell (Eds .), Educational Policy for Effective Schools Toronto, Canada: Teachers College Press.Marsh, H. W. (1989). Age and sex effects in multipl e dimensions of self-concept: Preadolescence to early childhood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 417-430. Molm, L. D. (1990). Structure, action and outcomes: The dynamics of power in social exchange. American Sociological Review 55 427-447. Morris, V. C., Crowson, R. L., Porter-Gehrie, C. & Hurwitz, Jr., E. (1984). Principals in action: the reality of managing schools. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.Peterson, K. D. (1984). Mechanisms of administrativ e control over managers in educational organizations. Administrative Science Quartlery, 29 (4), 573-597. Silberman, C. H. (1970). Crisis in the Classroom: The Remaking of American Education New York: Random House. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using Multivariate Statistics New York: Harper & Row.
20 of 22 Tashakkori, A. & Thompson, V. (1991). Social change and change in intentions of Iranian youth regarding education, marriage, and ca reers. International Journal of Psychology, 226 (2), 203-217. Watkins, J. F. (1968). The OCDQ : An application and some implications. Educational Administration Quarterly. 4 (2), 46-60. Wiggins, T. (1972). A comparative investigation of principal behavior and school climate. The Journal of Educational Research. 66 (3), 103-105.About the AuthorsCatherine H. Glascock, MBA, Ph.D.Ohio UniversityEmail: email@example.com.Catherine H. Glascock Catherine H. Glascock is Assistant Professor in th e Educational Studies Department at Ohio Univeristy. She holds an MBA in Finance and Ph.D. in Educational Administration from LSU. Her research i nterests are school structures, including facilities and finance. Catherine has spe nd much of her time evaluating the effectiveness of schhol districts through grant eff orts and publishing about schoo structure impacts on students. Her abiding interest is in how schools can best meet the needs of children. To that end she is collaborating with Rosalie Romano on a book about expeditionary learning and commuity linkages especi ally for poor distirct children in Appalachia.Diane TaylorLouisiana State UniversityCopyright 2001 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is epaa.asu.edu General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, firstname.lastname@example.org or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 8 5287-0211. (602-965-9644). The Commentary Editor is Casey D. C obb: email@example.com .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
21 of 22 Richard Garlikov firstname.lastname@example.org Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Education Commission of the States William McInerney Purdue University Mary McKeown-Moak MGT of America (Austin, TX) Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton email@example.com Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson New York University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers California State UniversityStanislaus Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven firstname.lastname@example.org Robert E. Stake University of IllinoisUC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education David D. Williams Brigham Young University EPAA Spanish Language Editorial BoardAssociate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico email@example.com Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de Guadalajaraadrianacosta@compuserve.com J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Cdizfelix.firstname.lastname@example.org Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho dis1.cide.mx Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicocanalesa@servidor.unam.mx Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universitycasanova@asu.edu Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Jose.Contreras@doe.d5.ub.es
22 of 22 Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of ChicagoEepstein@luc.edu Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universityjosue@asu.edu Rollin Kent (Mxico)Departamento de InvestigacinEducativa-DIE/CINVESTAVrkent@gemtel.com.mx email@example.com Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGSlucemb@orion.ufrgs.brJavier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicojaviermr@servidor.unam.mxMarcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Airesmmollis@filo.uba.ar Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicohumberto@servidor.unam.mxAngel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de Mlagaaiperez@uma.es Daniel Schugurensky (Argentina-Canad)OISE/UT, Canadadschugurensky@oise.utoronto.ca Simon Schwartzman (Brazil)Fundao Instituto Brasileiro e Geografiae Estatstica firstname.lastname@example.org Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain)Universidad de A Coruajurjo@udc.es Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)University of California, Los Angelestorres@gseisucla.edu
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 9issue 45series Year mods:caption 20012001Month October10Day 3030mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2001-10-30
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20019999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00242
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 9, no. 45 (October 30, 2001).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c October 30, 2001
Elementary principal/superintendent relationship as perceived by teachers and its effects on the school : a case study comparison / Catherine H. Glascock [and] Diane Taylor.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)