See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270821604

Instructional leadership

Article · January 1986

CITATIONS READS
47 10,387

2 authors:

Philip Hallinger Joseph Murphy

Mahidol University Vanderbilt University
360 PUBLICATIONS   21,318 CITATIONS    306 PUBLICATIONS   9,162 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Leading Change for Sustainiability (LCS): Simulation Development and Evaluation View project

Positive School Leadership View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joseph Murphy on 12 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Assessing the Instructional Management Behavior of Principals
Author(s): Philip Hallinger and Joseph Murphy
Source: The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 86, No. 2 (Nov., 1985), pp. 217-247
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001205
Accessed: 12-06-2016 21:39 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001205?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Elementary School Journal

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Assessing the Recent reviews of research on school ef-
fectiveness and organizational change sug-
Instructional gest that the principal can have a discern-
ible effect on a school's level of productivity
Management Behavior (Brookover et al., 1982; Clark, 1980; Hal-
linger, 1981; Leithwood & Montgomery,
of Principals 1982; Purkey & Smith, 1983). The prin-
cipal appears to exert this influence pri-
marily as the school's instructional man-
ager or leader (Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, &
Philip Hallinger Lee, 1981; Cotton & Savard, 1980a; Ed-
St. John's University monds, 1979; Edmonds & Frederiksen,
1978; Hallinger, Murphy, Weil, Mesa, &
Joseph Murphy Mitman, 1983; Murphy, Hallinger, Weil,
University of Illinois-Champaign
& Mitman, 1983; Shoemaker & Fraser,
1981; Sweeney, 1982; Venezky & Win-
field, 1979). Yet few studies have investi-
gated what principals do to manage cur-
riculum and instruction (Hallinger, 1983;
Murphy, Hallinger, & Mitman, 1983; Ro-
wan, Dwyer, & Bossert, 1982). Even less
research has examined the organizational
and personal factors that influence prin-
cipal instructional leadership (Bossert et al.,
1981; Greenfield, 1982; Hallinger, 1981;
Murphy, Hallinger, & Mitman, 1983).
The lack of research on instructional
management has affected school adminis-
trators in several ways. Instructional man-
agement (used synonymously in this paper
with instructional leadership) has meant
anything and everything; an administrator
trying to be an instructional leader has had
little direction in determining just what it
means to do so. Related to this problem,
practitioners who may have wished to as-
sess principal instructional management for
The Elementary School Journal
Volume 86, Number 2
purposes of evaluation or staff develop-
Q 1985 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. ment have not had a systematic method by
0013-5984/86/8602-0008$01.00
which to implement this. Finally, district

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
218 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

administrators who seek to promote in- The first problem concerns the speci-
structional management have had little ficity of research findings on school lead-
guidance concerning their role in provid- ership. In general, research on educational
ing and promoting instructional leader- leadership has failed to translate broad in-
ship. dicators of effectiveness into specific prac-
tices and behaviors that can be tested in
This article presents results from a
study that examined the instructional schools (Bossert et al., 1981; Brookover et
management behavior of 10 elementary al., 1978; Friesen & Duignan, 1980; Hal-
school principals in a single school district. linger, 1981; Murphy, Hallinger, & Mit-
The primary goal of the research was to man, 1983). In most cases, leadership var-
describe the instructional management be- iables have not been defined beyond such
havior of these principals in terms of spe- general functions as protecting instruc-
cific job behaviors. The study was con- tional time (Stallings & Mohlman, 1981),
ducted in cooperation with the school coordinating curriculum (Wellisch,
district, whose superintendent was inter- MacQueen, Carriere, & Duck, 1978), and
ested in developing an effective method monitoring student progress (Hallinger et
for assessing principal instructional man- al., 1983). Further research is needed to
agement behavior. Thus, as part of the identify the practices and behaviors that
constitute these broad functions and to test
study we also undertook the development
them in schools to learn more about the
of an appraisal instrument that could be
used to assess instructional management. conditions under which they are effective
This article presents the results of our at- (Murphy, Hallinger, & Mitman, 1983; Ro-
wan et al., 1982).
tempt to develop an instrument for mea-
This gap in the research was the pri-
suring principal instructional management
mary target for this study. It should be
behavior, our findings concerning what the
noted, however, that this weakness also
principals in this district do in terms of limited the data base on which we were
managing curriculum and instruction, and
able to draw in developing behavioral in-
tentative findings regarding personal and
dicators of instructional management.
organizational factors that may be associ-
Thus, this study represents an initial at-
ated with instructional management activ-
ities. tempt to define the instructional manage-
ment functions and behaviors of the prin-
cipal. We emphasize at the outset that the
Limitations of research on educational functions and behaviors delineated in this
leadership
study only constitute a tentative frame-
A preliminary objective of the study was work for examining instructional manage-
to develop a research-based definition of ment.

the principal's role as instructional man- Studies of leadership suggest that man-
ager. Therefore, a review of research on agerial behavior is strongly influenced by
educational leadership and school effec- organizational and societal contexts
tiveness was conducted to identify the crit- (Dwyer, 1984; Fiedler & Chemers, 1974).
ical job functions that constitute this role There is no reason to believe that instruc-
of the principal. In this section we briefly tional management differs in this respect.
discuss the most serious limitations of the Therefore, it is likely that various princi-
research base with regard to our study. pal behaviors will prove more or less ef-
These limitations include the lack of be- fective for different schools and under di-
havioral indicators of leadership, problems verse conditions. Undoubtedly, this will be
of generalizability, and the lack of explan- one of the major areas of investigation for
atory models. future research on the principalship. We
NOVEMBER 1985

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 219

return to this issue when we discuss the unravel the combined or interactive effects
implications of our findings. of variables. This limitation is particularly
The second problem concerns the gen- relevant when studying the effects of prin-
eralizability of research on effective schools cipals on learning outcomes, since their ef-
and principals. Three factors reduce the fects are largely mediated by teachers. The
generalizability of results from studies of absence of a guiding model also hinders
effective schools and principals. First, find- attempts to understand the connections
ings related to instructional leadership between and effects of different organi-
come from research conducted in urban zational levels on student outcomes (Cohen,
schools that serve poor children (Bossert Koehler, Datta, & Timpane, 1981; Mur-
et al., 1981; Hallinger, 1981; Murphy, phy & Hallinger, 1984; Murphy, Hallin-
Hallinger, & Mitman, 1983; Purkey 8c ger, & Mitman, 1983). It is encouraging to
Smith, 1983). Second, the great majority note that such models are now being de-
are studies of elementary schools; appli- veloped (Anderson, 1982; Bossert et al.,
cation of the findings to secondary schools 1981; Brookover et al., 1978; Gauthier,
may be limited by differences in school 1982; Murphy, Hallinger, Weil, & Mit-
mission, organizational structure, curric- man, 1983; Murphy, Weil, Hallinger, &
ular content, instructional organization, Mitman, 1982, 1985; Purkey & Smith,
characteristics of the student body, and 1983; Rutter, Maugham, Mortimore, Ous-
school size (Cotton & Savard, 1980a; Fire- ton, & Smith, 1979; Walberg & Shanahan,
stone & Herriot, 1982; Hallinger, 1981; 1983).
Persell, Cookson, & Lyons, 1982). Third,
the most often used criterion of school ef- The managerial behavior of principals
fectiveness is student achievement on tests Principals believe that they should be
of basic skills in reading or math-mea- highly involved in instruction and spend a
sures that have been criticized on both large portion of their time in classrooms
philosophical and technical grounds (Mur- working with students and teachers (Casey,
nane, 1981). Although these characteris- 1980). However, research indicates a dis-
tics of studies of effective schools do not crepancy between this norm and actual
reduce the validity of findings related to principal behavior. At least in the recent
the principal, the findings are not gener- past, principals have not allocated a sig-
alizable to schools that differ in terms of nificant portion of their time to managing
the characteristics noted above. instructional activities. Numerous struc-
The lack of explanatory models is a tured observation studies report that school
third problem that has impeded research administrators tend to spend most of their
on school and principal effects (Levin, workday on managerial tasks unrelated to
1978; Sirois & Villanova, 1982). Although instruction (Crowson, Hurwitz, Morris, &
this is not a problem per se, findings in- Porter-Gehrie, 1981; Friesen & Duignan,
terpreted outside the scope of models often 1980; Hannaway, 1978; Martin & Wil-
fail to provide the guidance needed for lower, 1981; Peterson, 1977-1978; Pit-
policy-making. There are several reasons ner, 1982; Willis, 1980; Willower & Kmetz,
for this. Neither case studies nor correla- 1982). Other studies of principals support
tional studies can provide information this finding. These studies indicate that
concerning causality. Without the knowl- most principals infrequently evaluate in-
edge that two variables are causally con- struction; evaluations they do perform tend
nected, rather than correlated, policymak- to be neither systematic nor valid (Cohen
ers cannot be certain of the effects of & Miller, 1980; Dornbusch & Scott, 1975;
interventions. In research conducted with- Lortie, 1969, 1975). Research also shows
out a guiding model, it is also difficult to that principals do not usually control or

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
220 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

develop instructional practices (Deal & eral dimensions: defining the school mis-
Celotti, 1979). sion, managing the instructional program,
Organizational analyses of schools sug- and promoting a positive learning climate
gest that the lack of managerial involve- (Hallinger et al., 1983). In this section these
ment in instructional management results three dimensions of instructional manage-
from the organizational properties of ment are defined and then subdivided into
schools (Deal & Celotti, 1979; Hannaway more narrowly defined job functions. The
& Sproull, 1980; March, 1978; Meyer & dimensions and job functions that consti-
Rowan, 1977; Sproull, 1981; Weick, 1982). tute instructional management are shown
Managers generally exercise less control in Table 1.
over the core technology in organizations In our conceptualization of the prin-
in which tasks and goals are characterized cipal's instructional management role, the
by ambiguity. Under conditions of uncer- job functions (e.g., monitoring student
tainty, managers tend to focus on activities progress) are implemented by way of di-
that are less ambiguous and that entail less rect and indirect activities (Murphy, Hal-
personal risk (Deal & Celotti, 1979; Han- linger, Weil, & Mitman, 1983). Indirect ac-
naway, 1978; Hannaway & Sproull, 1980; tivities include school policies as well as the
March & Olsen, 1976; Thompson, 1967). monitoring and enforcement practices as-
According to this explanation, principals sociated with them. For example, a school
spend relatively little time on instructional might have a policy that teachers will as-
management because it is unclear whether sign homework every weeknight and re-
one way of attaining a desired outcome turn the graded assignment to the students
(e.g., student achievement) is more effi- within 1 day. The policy represents an ex-
cient than another. In the absence of a clear plicit expectation for the whole staff; the
technology and stable goals, attempts by principal periodically monitors teacher im-
the principal to coordinate and control in- plementation of this policy. The involve-
struction are likely to result in increased ment of a principal in developing,
conflict with teachers. communicating, and ensuring the incor-
poration of schoolwide goals in classroom
The instructional management role of the practices represents another form of in-
principal direct principal activity. These policies and
Research on effective schools suggests that practices are indirect in the sense that they
principals in instructionally effective represent schoolwide expectations de-
schools maintain tighter coupling among signed to shape teacher and student be-
the goals, technology, and outcomes of havior in the absence of direct supervision.
schooling. As Cohen et al. (1981, p. 10) Through this indirect activity, the prin-
observe, "The effective schools research cipal can influence the work structure
suggests a model of schools which con- within which the staff perform. Indirect
forms closely to the classical model of bu- principal activity is advantageous in that it
reaucratic organization; i. e., goal oriented does not require constant supervision and
organizations with hierarchical authority therefore consumes less of the principal's
structures, with central managers who time. The major disadvantage of indirect
monitor behavior and deliberately adjust activity is that effectiveness of policy im-
organizational performance based upon plementation in the absence of direct su-
clear and agreed upon goals and feedback pervision requires teacher commitment to
regarding goal attainment." Studies of in- the policies. Such a consensus is often dif-
structionally effective schools suggest that ficult to achieve, though it may be one of
the instructional management role of the the keys to increasing the effectiveness of
principal can be subdivided into three gen- schools (Purkey & Smith, 1983).
NOVEMBER 1985

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 221

TABLE 1. Dimensions of Instructional Management

Manages Instructional
Defines the Mission Program Promotes School Climate

Framing school goals Supervising and evaluating Protecting instructional time

Communicating school goals instruction Promoting professional
Coordinating curriculum development
Monitoring student progress Maintaining high visibility
Providing incentives for
teachers
Enforcing academic
standards
Providing incentives for
students

In contrast to indirect activities aimed 1 can be described in terms of a combi-

at controlling the school work structure, nation of principal policies, practices, and
direct activity consists of principal behav- behaviors. Examples of policies, practices,
iors performed in relation to individual and behaviors subsumed under each of the
teachers or students. The foremost ex- job functions are described in this section
ample of direct activity is clinical super- and operationalized in the data collection
vision, in which the principal works with instrument (see App.).
teachers individually in a systematic and
focused fashion to promote improved in- Defining the school mission
struction. Direct activity is potentially more An important dimension of the prin-
effective than indirect activity because it cipal's role as instructional manager is to
takes into account individual differences define and communicate a mission or pur-
among teachers and students. It allows the pose for the school. Instructional leaders
principal to tailor programs or methods to are often said to have a "vision" of what
meet the needs of individual teachers. Di- the school should be trying to accomplish.
rect activity, though it may be more effec- Defining a school mission involves com-
tive in producing change in teacher be- municating this vision to the staff and stu-
havior, is probably less efficient than dents in such a way that a sense of shared
indirect activity. It is time-consuming and purpose exists, linking together the var-
requires a considerable degree of technical ious activities that take place in classrooms
skill on the part of the administrator. throughout the school. The principal's role
In reality, the issue is not which form in defining the mission involves framing
of principal activity is "best." Managing schoolwide goals and communicating these
curriculum and instruction in an environ- goals in a persistent fashion to the entire
ment of limited resources (e.g., time) and school community.
of multiple goals involves finding the Framing school goals. This function re-
proper balance between direct and indi- fers to a principal's role in determining the
rect activity. This balance will depend on areas in which school staff will focus their
a variety of contextual factors that con- attention and resources during a given
strain administrative behavior, such as staff school year. Instructionally effective
expertise and experience, nature of the schools often have clearly defined goals that
student body, school size, density of ad- focus on student achievement. The em-
ministrative staff, and community and su- phasis is on fewer goals around which staff
perordinate expectations. Each instruc- energy and other school resources can be
tional management function listed in Table mobilized. A few coordinated objectives,

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
222 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

each with a manageable scope, appear to nating the classroom objectives of teachers
work best. The goals should incorporate with those of the school, providing instruc-
data on past and current student perfor- tional support to teachers, and monitoring
mance and include staff responsibilities for classroom instruction through numerous
achieving the goals. Staff and parent input informal classroom visits. Feedback to
during the development of the school's teachers for both supervisory and evalua-
goals seems important. Performance goals tive purposes is concrete and related to
should be expressed in measurable terms specific instructional practices carried out
(Brookover et al., 1978; Clark, 1980; Ed- by the teachers (Stallings, 1980). This
monds, 1979; Gauthier, 1982; Lezotte, function, although currently popular, re-
Hathaway, Miller, Passalacqua, & Brook- ceives only limited support from research
over, n.d.; Venezky & Winfield, 1979). on school effectiveness (Levine & Stark,
Communicating school goals. This 1982; Lipham, 1981; New York State Of-
function is concerned with the ways in fice of Performance Review, 1974). There
which the principal communicates the is little evidence that close supervision of
school's important goals to teachers, par- instruction results in greater student
ents, and students. Principals can ensure achievement. This function is included in
that the importance of school goals is the framework of this study because it fol-
understood by discussing and reviewing lows the general management model of co-
them with staff periodically during the ordination and control, and the district ex-
school year, especially in the context of pected principals to engage actively in
instructional, curricular, and budgetary instructional supervision.
decisions. Both formal communication Coordinating curriculum. A character-
(e.g., goal statements, staff bulletins, arti- istic that stands out in instructionally ef-
cles in the principal or site-council news- fective schools is the high degree of cur-
letter, curricular and staff meetings, par- ricular coordination. School curricular
ent and teacher conferences, school objectives are closely aligned with both the
handbook, assemblies) and informal inter- content taught in classes and with achieve-
action (e.g., conversations with staff) can ment tests. In addition, there appears to
be used to communicate the school's mis- be a fairly high degree of continuity in the
sion (Brookover et al., 1982; Brookover & curriculum across grade levels. This aspect
Lezotte, 1979; Brookover et al., 1978; Ed- of curricular coordination is often sup-
monds, 1979; Edmonds & Frederiksen, ported by greater interaction among
1978; Shoemaker & Fraser, 1981; Ve- teachers within and across grade levels on
nezky & Winfield, 1979). instructional and curricular issues (Brook-
over et al., 1982; Brookover et al., 1978;
Managing the instructional program Clark, 1980; Cohen & Miller, 1980; Cooley
This dimension of instructional man- & Leinhardt, 1980; Eubanks & Levine,
agement involves working with teachers in 1983; Freeman et al., 1983; Hallinger &
areas specifically related to curriculum and Murphy, n.d.; Levine, 1982; Levine &
instruction. It consists of several related Stark, 1982; Venezky & Winfield, 1979).
job functions. These are supervising and Monitoring student progress. Instruc-
evaluating instruction, coordinating the tionally effective schools emphasize both
curriculum, and monitoring student prog- standardized and criterion-referenced
ress.
testing. Tests are used to diagnose pro-
Supervising and evaluating instruc- grammatic and student weaknesses, to
tion. A central task of the principal is to evaluate the results of changes in the
ensure that school goals are translated into school's instructional program, and to
classroom practice. This involves coordi- make classroom assignments. Principals
NOVEMBER 1985

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 223

play a key role in this area in several ways. blocks of uninterrupted instructional time.
They provide teachers with test results in Teachers' classroom management and in-
a timely and useful fashion, discuss test re- structional skills are not used optimally if
sults with the staff as a whole and with instruction is frequently interrupted by an-
grade-level staff and individual teachers, nouncements, tardy students, and requests
and provide interpretive analyses that de- from the office. The principal can control
scribe the test data in a concise form for this area of activity through the develop-
teachers. They use test results for setting ment and enforcement of schoolwide pol-
goals, assessing the curriculum, evaluating icies. Principals who successfully imple-
instruction, and measuring progress toward ment policies that limit interruptions of
school goals (Brookover et al., 1982; Ed- classroom learning time can increase al-
monds, 1979; Edmonds & Frederiksen, located learning time and, potentially, stu-
1978; Gauthier, 1982; Hallinger et al., dent achievement (Stallings, 1980).
1983; Levine & Stark, 1982; Purkey & Promoting professional development.
Smith, 1983; Rutter et al., 1979; Shoe- Principals have several ways of supporting
maker & Fraser, 1981; Stallings, 1980; teachers' efforts to improve instruction.
Stallings & Mohlman, 1981; Venezky & They can inform teachers of opportunities
Winfield, 1979). for staff development and lead in-service
training activities. They can ensure that
Promoting a positive school learning staff development activities are closely
climate
linked to school goals and that participa-
School learning climate refers to the tion is either schoolwide or centered on
norms and attitudes of the staff and stu- natural groupings (e.g., primary or upper
dents that influence learning in the school. elementary grades). This function also in-
This dimension consists of primarily in- volves helping teachers integrate skills
direct, though important, activities. The learned during staff development pro-
principal communicates expectations for grams and assisting in classroom imple-
students and teachers through the policies mentation (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978;
and practices promulgated by the school Brookover et al., 1982; Clark, 1980; Lam-
(Murphy et al., 1982). Principals can influ- bert & Lambert, 1983; Leithwood & Mont-
ence student and teacher attitudes through gomery, 1982; Little, 1982; McCormack-
the creation of a reward structure that Larkin & Kritek, 1982; McLaughlin &
reinforces academic achievement and pro- Marsh, 1978; Miles, 1983; Purkey & Smith,
ductive effort; through clear, explicit stan- 1983; Rutter et al., 1979).
dards embodying what the school expects Maintaining high visibility. Although
from students; through the careful use of a significant portion of their time is taken
school time; and through the selection and up by mandatory meetings and functions,
implementation of high-quality staff de- principals can set priorities for how the
velopment programs. remaining time is to be spent. Visibility on
Protecting instructional time. Research the campus and in classrooms increases in-
conducted during the late 1970s and 1980s teractions between the principal and stu-
indicates the substantial effects of time on dents as well as with teachers. Informal in-
student learning (Cotton & Savard, 1980b; teraction of these types provides the
Denham & Lieberman, 1980; Harnisch- principal with more information on the
feger & Wiley, 1984; Stallings, 1980; Stall- needs of students and teachers. It also af-
ings & Mohlman, 1981). In particular, the fords the principal opportunities to com-
work of Jane Stallings and others on al- municate the priorities of the school. This
located learning time calls attention to the can have positive effects on students' and
importance of providing teachers with teachers' attitudes and behaviors (Bossert

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
224 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

et al., 1981; Brookover et al., 1982; Casey, recognition before teachers and peers is
1980; Clark, 1980; Lasley & Wayson, 1982; the key. Students should have opportuni-
Wynne, 1980). ties to be recognized for their achievement
Providing incentives for teachers. An both within the classroom and before the
important part of the principal's role in school as a whole. The principal is a key
creating a positive learning climate in- actor in linking classrooms and school re-
volves setting up a work structure that re- ward systems, ensuring that they are mu-
wards and recognizes teachers for their ef- tually supportive (Brookover et al., 1982;
forts. Principals have few discretionary Brookover et al., 1978; Lasley & Wayson,
rewards to use with teachers. The single 1982; Rutter et al., 1979; Wynne, 1980).
salary schedule and the tenure system se- These job functions constitute the con-
verely limit principals' ability to motivate ceptual definitions for the principal vari-
teachers. However, research has begun to ables examined in this study. These defi-
show that money is not the only way to nitions were used to help generate the
reward high levels of performance. In one specific policies, practices, and behaviors
study, money was only slightly more effec- that form the questionnaire used to collect
tive than praise as an incentive (Latham & data on principal behavior.
Wexley, 1981). This finding has been sub-
Method
stantiated in different types of organiza-
tions (Latham & Wexley, 1981; Lawler, Data collection

1971). Other forms of reward available to This study used two types of data to
principals include privately expressed generate descriptions of principal instruc-
praise, public recognition, and formal tional management behavior. The first
honors and awards.
source of data was a questionnaire de-
Developing and enforcing academic signed to assess principal instructional
standards. Clearly defined, high standards management behavior; it was adminis-
reinforce the high expectations necessary tered to the principals, their school staffs,
for improving student learning. One study and district office supervisors. The ques-
that compares successful and less success- tionnaire data were supplemented by data
ful schools found that academically suc- culled from documents: supervisory as-
cessful schools tended to require mastery sessments based on observations of the
of a defined set of skills prior to entry into principals during clinical supervision con-
the following grade (Wellisch et al., 1978). ferences, teacher evaluation reports writ-
High standards are also promoted when ten by the principals, school goal state-
increasing numbers of students are ex- ments, principal newsletters, memos and
pected to master basic skills (Brookover et bulletins, school handbooks, faculty meet-
al., 1982; Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; ing agendas and minutes, and narrative re-
Clark, 1980; Edmonds & Frederiksen, ports submitted by the principals that de-
1978; Levine & Stark, 1982; Murphy et al., scribe what they did to manage curriculum
1982; Rutter et al., 1979; Venezky & Win- and instruction in their schools. The ques-
field, 1979). tionnaire responses form the primary data
Providing incentives for learning. It is base for the analyses contained in this ar-
possible to create a school learning climate ticle. Therefore, some space is devoted to
in which students value academic achieve- a description of the questionnaire, its mea-
ment by frequently rewarding and recog- surement properties, and the procedures
nizing student academic achievement and used to administer it in the schools.
improvement. In low-income schools, stu- Behaviorally anchored rating scales.
dents need frequent, tangible rewards. The The methodology used in this study to de-
rewards need not be fancy or expensive; velop an instrument for measuring prin-
NOVEMBER 1985

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 225

cipal instructional management behavior scored by calculating the item and subscale
generally followed steps prescribed by La- means. A "higher" mean score (i.e., closer
tham and Wexley (1981) for constructing to 5) indicates that the respondents per-
behaviorally anchored rating scales ceive the principal to perform the practice
(BARS). These scales rely on descriptions with a higher degree of frequency. A copy
of critical job-related behaviors for the de- of the Principal Instructional Management
velopment of scale items. The items are Rating Scale is included in the Appendix.
"behaviorally anchored" in the sense that Survey administration. The Principal
they are statements of critical job-related Instructional Management Rating Scale
behaviors on which raters can base their was used to collect data on the instruc-
appraisal of an individual's performance tional management behavior of all 10 ele-
within a given dimension of a job. The mentary school principals from the coop-
strength of the BARS approach lies in its erating school district. The district serves
specificity; the scales make explicit to both approximately 8,000 students in grades K-
the appraiser and the employee exactly 12 from diverse ethnic backgrounds. The
what is expected and what must be ob- district is located in a suburban working-
served with respect to the employee's on- class community near San Jose, California.
the-job behavior. The scales can also serve The raters were drawn from three role
other functions within the organization: as groups: teachers at each of the 10 schools
the basis for a job description; as part of (104), elementary school principals (10),
a performance feedback system for staff and district office supervisors (3). The dis-
evaluation; as a blueprint for the devel- trict office supervisors included the super-
opment of staff training in the areas mea- intendent, deputy superintendent, and di-
sured by the instrument; and as an aid in rector of instruction, each of whom
manpower planning (Bernardin, 1977; completed a questionnaire on 10 princi-
Blood, 1974; Harari & Zedeck, 1973; La- pals. The same rating instrument was ad-
tham, Fay, & Saari, 1979; Latham & Wex- ministered to the three groups over a 6-
ley, 1977, 1981; Smith & Kendall, 1963). week period during April and May. The
The rating instrument (the Principal three role groups filled out the question-
Instructional Management Rating Scale) naires under varied conditions. The prin-
used in this study consists of 11 subscales cipals filled out their self-reports at a dis-
that correspond to the job functions de- trict administrative staff meeting. The
scribed earlier. It contains 71 items, with
principal investigator surveyed the teach-
subscales composed of between four and ers during afternoon staff meetings at their
11 items. Respondents are asked questions respective schools on different days. The
about the job behavior of the principal over
district office supervisors were given sev-
the past school year. For example, one item eral weeks to complete their appraisals on
asks respondents the extent to which the
their own. The computations contained in
principal "uses needs assessment or other this paper are derived from the teachers'
questionnaires to secure staff input on goal questionnaire responses, unless otherwise
development." The respondents indicate noted.
the extent to which they feel the principal
Reliability and validity of the instru-
performed the particular practice, choos-
ment. The adequacy of this appraisal in-
ing their response from a Likert Scale:
strument was tested using five criteria:
"almost never" (1) to "almost always" (5).
The scale also contains a sixth response-- (1) Content validity-items making
"?"-for respondents to choose in cases in up each subscale of the instru-
which they have not observed the principal ment must be relevant to the crit-
in the given context. The instrument is ical requirements of the job; each

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
226 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

item assigned to a subscale reliably and validly the components of in-

achieved a minimum average structional management.
agreement of .80 among a group Results and discussion
of raters.
In this section we present two aspects of
(2) Reliability (Cronbach's alpha)--
subscales achieved a reliability the research results. First, we report the
coefficient of at least .75 as a test instructional management profiles devel-
of the instrument's internal con- oped from the questionnaire data. In this
descriptive portion we focus primarily on
sistency, ensuring that the instru-
ment would be reliable for both the principals' group profile. We highlight
research and evaluation.
practices and behaviors on which the prin-
cipals scored particularly high or low as
(3) Validity (analysis of variance)- well as practices on which there was sub-
the subscales should discriminate
stantial variation among principals. In the
among principals; variance in second portion of the results section we
principal ratings within schools present an exploratory analysis of the per-
was, in most cases, less than the sonal and organizational factors that seem
variance in ratings of principals to be associated with more or less active
between schools at a significance instructional management in this district.
level of .05. The process of describing principal be-
(4) Construct validity (subscale inter- havior on the basis of perceptions is sub-
correlation)-groups of items ject to the limitations of such data; per-
within a subscale correlated more ceptions are not evidence of actual
strongly with each other than behavior and can be affected by rating er-
with other subscales. ror (Latham & Wexley, 1981). In addition,
(5) Construct validity (documentary the questionnaire data do not provide a
support)-an analysis of school measure of the effectiveness of the prin-
documents related to the instruc- cipals' behavior, only the frequency with
tional management behavior of which the raters perceive the behaviors to
the principals generally yielded be performed. Thus, it is possible that cer-
instructional management profiles
tain behaviors could be performed fre-
similar to those obtained from quently but in a perfunctory or ritualistic
manner. Similarly, certain practices prob-
teachers with the questionnaire.
ably do not need to be performed fre-
In this article we present the measure- quently in order to be performed effec-
ment properties of the 11 subscales in sum- tively. Direct observation of principals was
mary form. A detailed description of the not conducted in this study, nor were in-
instrument and its development is pro- terviews conducted on a systematic basis.
Such data would have been useful as an
vided elsewhere (Hallinger, 1982, 1983).
The evidence related to the five criteria is additional validity check. We acknowledge
summarized in Table 2 with one of three these limitations and attempt to guard
assessments: yes, no, or mixed. "Yes" against unwarranted inferences by check-
means that the subscale met the standard ing the teacher perceptions against the
perceptions of the principals and super-
set for the particular assessment criterion;
"no" means it did not; and "mixed" means visors as well as against the documentary
data.
it met an acceptable but lower standard.
Although there is some variation in the A group profile of principal instructional
strength of the instructional management management
subscales, the Principal Instructional Man- The description of principal instruc-
agement Rating Scale appears to measure tional management behavior addresses the
NOVEMBER 1985

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 227

TABLE 2. Summary of Reliability and Validity of the Principal Instructional

Management Rating Scale

Validity Validity Validity

Content Analysis of Inter- Document
Subscale Validity Reliability Variable correlations Analysis

Framing goals Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Communicating goals Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Monitoring student
progress Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Supervising/evaluating
instruction Yes Yes Yes Yes N.A.
Coordinating the
curriculum Yes Yes Yes Yes N.A.
Protecting instructional
time Yes Yes Yes Yes N.A.
Maintaining high
visibility Yes Yes Yes Yes N.A.
Providing incentives for
teachers Yes Yes Yes Yes N.A.
Promoting professional
development Yes Yes No Yes Mixed
Enforcing academic
standards Yes Yes No Yes N.A.
Providing incentives for
learning Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
NOTE.-N.A.= not available.

following questions: (1) What does the haviors. This is reflected in the large stan-
group profile of the 10 principals look like? dard deviations associated with ratings on
(2) Which instructional management func- the functions.
tions, practices, and behaviors do the prin- Defining the mission. The principals ap-
cipals engage in most frequently? Which pear to be active in their performance of
are performed relatively less often? (3) the two functions within this dimension.
What notable differences are there be- Their mean rating by teachers is 3.8 (of a
tween principals in their instructional possible 5) on "framing goals" and 3.7 on
management behaviors? (4) What pattern "communicating goals," indicating that
is there in principal behavior across the 11 principals frequently perform these be-
job functions? haviors. Note again that these data de-
Table 3 presents the means and stan- scribe the frequency, rather than the ef-
dard deviations for the ratings by the three fectiveness, with which principals engage
role groups on the instructional manage- in the specified practices.
ment subscales. This picture of the group's The principals in this district generally
performance shows surprisingly high per- use student performance data to frame
formance levels among the principals as a their school goals. Most include target dates
group, particularly since the literature on and staff responsibilities in their goal state-
principal behavior led us to expect rela- ments. Their goals reflect a concern for
tively low principal involvement in instruc- improvement in student performance and
tional management. Despite this strong are usually easily translated into classroom
overall picture, there is substantial varia- objectives. The principals are less active in
tion in the frequency with which the prin- their efforts to obtain teacher input in the
cipals perform the different instructional development of goals, though this partic-
management functions, practices, and be- ular practice varies widely across schools.

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
228 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

TABLE 3. Instructional Management Ratings of the Principals

Principal Supervisory
Teacher Rating Self-Report Rating
Subscale (N= 104) (N= 10) (N= 3)

Framing goals X= 3.8 4.2 4.3

(SD=-1.2) (.6) ( .5)
Communicating goals 3.7 3.8 3.1
(1.0) ( .8) (1.6)
Supervising and evaluating instruction 4.2 4.4 3.9
( .8) ( .5) ( .8)
Coordinating curriculum 4.0 4.2 3.9
(1.0) ( .6) (.7)
Monitoring student progress 3.9 4.2 4.1
(1.0) (.5) (.5)
Protecting instructional time 3.6 3.9 3.6
(1.0) ( .7) (1.2)
Promoting professional development 3.9 4.0 3.7
(.9) ( .4) ( .8)
Maintaining high visibility 3.8 4.2 4.2
(1.0) (.5) (.5)
Providing incentives for teachers 3.7 4.0 3.0
(1.0) ( .6) (1.3)
Enforcing academic standards 4.2 4.3 4.4
(.9) ( .6) ( .5)
Providing incentives for learning 4.0 4.3 2.6
(1.1) ( .5) (2.0)

NOTE.-All ratings are based on a Likert Scale, which runs from 1--"almost never"-to
5--"almost always." Lower mean scores represent job functions that principals perform less
frequently.

In certain schools, teachers are systemat- variation between schools suggests that the
ically involved in school goal development; principals differ in the persistence with
in others, hardly at all. The goal docu- which they communicate their goals and
ments collected from the schools verify the integrate them into the ongoing life of the
reports obtained from the questionnaire school. As we noted above, interview and
data, with the exception of one school in observation data would have been useful
which the teacher ratings do not reflect in attempting to understand better how
the vague nature of the school's goal state- principals go about communicating goals,
ment.
how the organizational context affects
Most of the principals reinforce com- principal behavior in this dimension, and
munication of their school mission to how such differences are related to differ-
teachers in both faculty meetings and in- ences in school mission and teacher be-
formal settings. Again, however, there is havior.
substantial variability among principals. Although the principals generally seem
Faculty meeting agendas and minutes in- to be aware of the need to communicate
dicate that certain schools formally discuss schoolwide goals to teachers, few of the
goals and goal progress up to six times dur- principals place a similar emphasis on in-
ing the year; in other schools, formal goal forming students of the school mission.
discussions only occur twice per year. Such Only three principals consistently use some
NOVEMBER 1985

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 229

combination of student assemblies, class- performing very frequently (i.e., mean

room meetings, and visible displays within score > 4.2) are (1) ensuring that class-
the school for this purpose. The items re- room goals and objectives coincide with
lated to these practices produced among those of the school; (2) evaluating teachers
the highest variance of all the question- on school objectives; (3) monitoring in-
naire responses. Self-report and supervi- struction to ensure that teachers' practices
sory ratings were consistent with the are appropriate to their classroom objec-
teacher ratings on these items. We infer tives; (4) pointing out in oral conferences
from these data that most of the elemen- and written evaluations specific instruc-
tary principals in this district assume that tional strengths and weaknesses based on
students do not constitute a key audience classroom observations; (5) reviewing stu-
with respect to the development of a school dent work as a part of supervising instruc-
mission. Though we cannot, at this time, tion; (6) noting student time on-task in their
judge the validity of such an assumption, feedback to teachers after classroom ob-
we note that the three top-rated instruc- servations.
tional leaders in the district were the only Considering the discrepancy between
principals who appeared to make persist- our findings and those of prior research
ent efforts to communicate the school's on principal supervision and evaluation
mission to students. These three principals practices, it seemed particularly important
were also highly rated on other practices to determine the validity of these data.
that measure principal contact with stu- Three types of checks were made beyond
dents. We will mention these instances in the analysis of variance. First, the teacher
the description of the other job functions. perceptions were compared with the self-
Managing the instructional program. report and supervisory appraisals. Princi-
Principal ratings within this dimension pal mean self-report ratings (4.4) were
were generally quite high. The relatively higher but quite similar to those of the
small between-school variation on a num- teachers (4.2). The district supervisors also
ber of specific job practices suggested a gave the principals higher ratings as a
strong district office influence. This di- group than might have been expected (3.9),
mension contains the function on which though they were somewhat less enthu-
the principals as a group received their siastic in their appraisal of principal su-
highest rating, "supervising and evaluat- pervisory practices. The second validity
ing instruction." The high rating on this check involved an examination of the for-
function is surprising in light of previous mal teacher evaluations written by the
research on principal evaluation behavior principals. We looked for the type of in-
(Dornbusch & Scott, 1975). In another formation that the questionnaire mea-
sense, however, the high ratings were not sured. The written evaluations consist-
unexpected. The principals had all been ently supported the questionnaire findings
going through an intensive staff develop- (e.g., items 16, 17, 20, 21, 23). As a third
ment program that focused specifically on check on the validity of the data on su-
clinical supervision skills. Over the pre- pervisory practices, we examined the re-
vious 3 years, the district superintendent ports of district staff development special-
had made explicit his expectation that the ists who had observed the principals during
principals would put the skills acquired in supervisory conferences with teachers.
the training program to use in their These specialists had rated the principals
schools. The data suggest that the princi- on criteria similar to those contained on
pals are actively supervising and evaluating the supervision and evaluation subscale
instruction in their schools. The specific (e.g., items 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22). Al-
practices that the principals appear to be though there were discrepancies between

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
230 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

two ratings (i.e., the questionnaire ratings cipals use test results for a variety of pur-
were higher than those given by the ob- poses: to assess progress toward school
servers), the specialists' evaluations con- goals; to help develop new goals; and to
firmed that the principals as a group were identify individual students in need of spe-
performing the practices at the high level cial assistance. As with the profile on com-
reported by the questionnaire. municating school goals, principal prac-
All of the principals are actively in- tices differ widely with respect to teachers
volved in "coordinating the curriculum" and students. The principals do not gen-
at their schools. Between-school variation erally inform students of school test re-
was less than we expected on many of the sults, though, as with the other practices
specific practices. A strong district office involving contact with students, there was
role in curriculum development may have wide variation among principals (SD =
been partly responsible for this phenom- 1.5). The same three principals who see
enon. Principals use test results to identify students as an important audience with re-
strengths and weaknesses in the instruc- spect to the communication of school goals
tional programs in almost all of the schools. also make efforts to inform students of
They monitor use of districtwide instruc- school test results. These principals incor-
tional objectives by both regular and spe- porate systematic mechanisms into their
cial programs and also review curricular daily, weekly, and monthly routines to en-
materials at both the school and district sure direct contact with students, be it
levels. The one area of curricular coor- through class meetings, assemblies, or
dination in which the principals are less classroom teaching. Again, we cannot
consistently involved is ensuring that class- comment on the effects of this practice at
room curricular materials are aligned with this time; however, principals who main-
the school's instructional objectives. Four tain a consistent orientation toward stu-
principals perform this practice frequently dents are also perceived by teachers and
(mean score > 4.0), whereas three of them district office supervisors as the strongest
engage in this practice with considerably instructional leaders.
less regularity (mean score < 3.1). Promoting a positive school learning
An awareness of the importance of test climate. The teachers rate the principals
scores within the district is apparent in the lowest, as a group, on the "protecting in-
principals' ratings on the job function in- structional time" subscale, with a mean of
volving "monitoring student progress." 3.6. This rating falls between "sometimes"
Their mean rating was 3.9. They regularly and "frequently" on the response scale.
present teachers with written reports on This lower rating is not surprising consid-
school test results and distribute the scores ering the common complaint of site ad-
to teachers in a timely fashion. We found ministrators that emergencies are routine.
evidence of regular reporting of test re- The data confirm that in most of the dis-
sults in faculty meeting minutes, in news- trict's elementary schools, instructional
letters to parents, and in staff memos and time is often interrupted by public-address
reports. The principals prefer to discuss announcements or requests for students
test results in formal settings rather than from the office. Furthermore, students do
in individual conferences with teachers. not as a rule make up learning time lost
Considering the time constraints of their due to unexcused absences or tardiness.
job, this preference for indirect activity Systematic enforcement of consequences
seems sensible, though we have no way of for missing instructional time appears to
knowing the mix of methods that best ac- be the exception rather than the rule.
complishes the task of communicating this Thus, the data support the conventional
important information to teachers. Prin- wisdom that principals do not generally ex-
NOVEMBER 1985

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 231

ercise control over the use of time in their increasing the total instructional time
schools. available for learning.
This characterization does not, how- The district has emphasized staff de-
ever, accurately portray all of the princi- velopment for both teachers and admin-
pals. There is substantial variation be- istrators, and principals' ratings in the area
tween principals on most of the practices of "promoting instructional improvement
within this job function. This is reflected and professional development" reflect this
in large standard deviations-all but one emphasis. The principal mean score is 3.9,
of which are greater than 1.3. A few of and all of the principals score relatively
the principals do treat instructional time high on this function. Again, we observed
small between-school differences on a
as a precious resource. The principal at
one school received a 5 (i.e., "almost al- number of items within this job function;
ways") from all of her teachers on almost this may have been due to strong district
mandates and involvement in the area.
every item within this subscale. This in-
dicates a remarkable consensus, particu- Despite the strong overall profile on this
larly since in our work with school faculties function, principals exhibit certain staff
we have often heard teachers complain development practices more frequently
about a lack of administrative support in than others. They usually select in-service
this area. This finding suggests that al- activities consistent with their stated goals,
though most of the principals in the dis- support teacher requests for in-service, and
trict do not systematically design and im- frequently inform teachers of opportuni-
ties outside as well as within the district.
plement policies to minimize interruptions
of instructional time, it is not because such The principals generally participate in staff
development with teachers. The district of-
policies and practices cannot be imple-
fice monitors and controls all of the above
mented effectively.
The item within this subscale on which practices. In contrast, professional devel-
opment practices in which the principals
the principals consistently scored highest
and that showed the least variance con- engage less frequently are not under dis-
cerns how instructional time is used in the trict control: distributing articles to staff,
classroom, rather than those items that arranging for outside speakers on instruc-
tional issues, and supporting teachers in
concern school policies external to the
integrating newly learned skills in the
classroom. The principals frequently visit
classrooms to ensure that instructional time
classrooms. The first two of these practices
probably do not need to occur frequently.
is used for learning and practicing new
However, helping teachers integrate their
skills and concepts. This practice is closely new skills in their classrooms has been
related to the clinical supervision tech- found to be an important practice in pro-
niques that the principals learned in their moting change within schools (Berman &
staff development training and further McLaughlin, 1978).
suggests that the principals pay close at- The issue of developing and providing
tention to certain aspects of instruction. "incentives for teachers" has received
This finding does, however, present an in- much attention in recent national reports.
teresting picture. On the one hand, the The data collected in this study indicate
principals as a group devote more atten- that strong informal norms predominate
tion to the inspection of instruction than in regard to rewarding teachers in schools.
we expected. On the other hand, most of In this district, principal practices de-
the principals have not generalized their signed to reward teachers for special ef-
concern with teacher use of instructional forts or high levels of performance usually
time within classrooms to other ways of take the form of private acknowledgment.

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
232 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

Public recognition or rewards for teachers more highly developed classroom reward
are the exception rather than the rule. The systems. Honor assemblies are held at all
principal who ranked highest on all other of the schools, though the frequency varies
job functions ranked only eighth on this quite a bit; mean scores for individual
function. She reported that she almost schools ranged from 3.3 to 5.0. Principals
never publicly rewarded teachers. This is also regularly see individual students in
in contrast to the well-developed and per- their offices to commend them for work
vasive system of public rewards and rec- well done. Finally, principals often initiate
ognition that she uses with students. Some positive contact with parents, though this
of the principals also write short notes of practice occurs much more frequently in
commendation for the teachers' personnel some schools than others; individual school
files; however, the use of this practice var- means ranged from 2.8 to 4.6. Principals
ied widely within the district. The results who initiate positive contact with parents
on this job function suggest that the prin- with the greatest frequency are the same
cipal-teacher relationship is dominated by ones who frequently initiate contact with
both formal and informal norms that con- students.
strain principal behavior. The interaction Summary of results. This profile of the
between the informal structure of the
principals suggests that there are consist-
school and the tasks involved in coordi-
ent differences between principals in their
nating and controlling instruction cer- instructional management behavior. The
tainly needs to be examined more closely. principal and supervisory ratings generally
The teachers perceive that the princi- support those of the teachers. However, in
pals "maintain a high visibility" in their several cases, the self-reports of individual
schools, though the degree to which in- principals were not consistent with those
dividual principals appear in particular of the teachers and supervisors. This find-
contexts varies considerably. They are ing is consistent with prior research on self-
usually available during school recess and report appraisals (Heneman, 1974; La-
lunch periods to chat with students and tham & Wexley, 1981; Teel, 1978; Thorn-
teachers, and often attend cocurricular ac-
ton, 1968, 1980). Self-report data are often
tivities at the school with students, parents, idiosyncratic. In most cases, documentary
and teachers. The principals are also vis- data confirmed the validity of the ques-
ible in classrooms, often substituting for tionnaire results. We noted in our discus-
teachers for relatively short periods of time. sion that observation and interview data
The principals, however, are somewhat less
would have further strengthened our con-
visible as a group in terms of the frequency fidence in the results as well as added use-
with which they visit classrooms to speak
ful information for extending the analyses.
with students and teachers. Few of the
The absence of outcome data limited our
principals spend time tutoring small groups
ability to test the external validity of the
or individual students. Again, however, we
instructional leadership construct or to
find that those who do structure teaching
time into their schedules tend to com-
comment on the relative importance of the
various principal functions, policies, prac-
municate more consistently with students tices, or behaviors.
in other ways as well.
Despite these limitations, several pat-
The principals also received high rat-
terns emerge from our analysis of instruc-
ings on providing "incentives for learn-
tional management in this district:
ing." They all provide some schoolwide re-
wards for students and opportunities for (1) Generally, the principals are
student recognition. In most cases, the more actively involved in manag-
schoolwide reward structure reinforces ing curriculum and instruction
NOVEMBER 1985

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 233

than the literature leads the Personal and organizational factors

reader to expect. Yet within this related to instructional management
one district there is still substan-
In this section, we present the results
tial between-school variation, par- of an exploratory analysis of factors asso-
ticularly with respect to specific ciated with principal instructional man-
principal policies, practices, and agement behavior. In particular, we dis-
behaviors.
cuss factors that might influence a principal
(2) The principals supervise and eval- to take a more or less active role in in-
uate instruction more closely structional management. Our review of re-
than has been found in previous search on principals provided little in the
studies.
way of guidance in terms of which varia-
(3) The principals generally do not bles to examine. Thus, despite the small
view students as a key audience. size of our sample, we believe that an at-
Thus, few make systematic efforts tempt to identify factors related to instruc-
to create or maintain close con-
tional management is warranted. The pur-
tact with students. This was ap- pose of this analysis is, therefore, limited
parent on several job functions, strictly to the exploration of potentially
including communicating goals, fruitful variables for study in future re-
monitoring student progress, and search.
maintaining high visibility. Our explanatory framework divides the
(4) The principals who are highly universe of explanations into three sets:
ranked across the 11 job func- explanations based on individual differ-
tions tend to maintain close con-
ences, explanations based on differences in
tact with students. This is nota-
organizational structure, and combined
ble, since there are relatively few explanations. We operationalized each ex-
items on the questionnaire that planatory set in terms of specific factors
solicit information on principal- that might account for the pattern of var-
student interaction.
iation found in this study. Due to limita-
(5) Most of the schools do not have tions of space, we only present our findings
policies and practices that protect and not our conceptual framework. A more
instructional time from interrup- complete description of this portion of the
tions. In contrast, the principals study can be found elsewhere (Hallinger,
seem to monitor closely class- 1983).
room practices that promote the The data analyzed in this section con-
effective use of instructional time.
sist of the top- and bottom-rated groups of
(6) The principals rarely reinforce principals, based on the teacher question-
outstanding teacher effort or per- naire ratings on the 11 job functions. Prin-
formance publicly. Principals pre- cipals were ranked on each job function
fer private recognition and, to a using the teacher ratings; the rankings were
lesser degree, notes to teachers then averaged, and an overall rank was as-
or to their personnel files. signed to each principal. The three top-
(7) There is less between-school vari- and three bottom-rated principals were se-
ation on policies and practices lected for the following analyses in order
that the district office controls.
to determine which factors, if any, might
(8) Principals score fairly consistently differentiate the two groups.
across job subscales; that is, prin- Explanations based on individual dif
cipals who rank near the top on ferences. Explanations that focus on the in-
one function are likely to rank dividual as the source of differences in
highly on other functions. principal behavior include gender, age, ed-

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
234 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

ucational training (terminal degree and management is only a first step. This in-
educational specializations), experience as formation does not explain what it is about
a principal, administrative training and ex- being younger that results in greater in-
perience, years at current school site, level volvement in instructional management.
of experience as a teacher, and years of In addition, this may well be a spurious
teaching experience. This list of individ- correlation. The younger principals also
ual-level factors does not exhaust the po- tended to be ones who had assumed the
tential influences on principal instruc- principalship under the current superin-
tional management behavior. tendent and thus with different expecta-
Personality variables, leadership style, tions concerning their role behavior. Even
and principal attitudes and beliefs also fall so, this variable should be examined in
within this domain of explanations. They combination with other variables in future
are, however, beyond the scope of this studies.
study. The next variables subsumed under this
None of the personal variables re- set of explanations are proxies for knowl-
vealed a clear, consistent pattern. The per- edge of curriculum and instruction. Mea-
sonal variable that discriminates best be- sures of formal education, site-level ad-
tween the two groups is gender. The two ministrative experience, and elementary
top-ranked principals are women, whereas teaching experience do not explain the
the bottom-ranked group is predomi- variation in principal instructional man-
nantly male. The finding is of interest be- agement behavior. We note, however, that
cause only three of the 10 principals in the these proxies for knowledge of curriculum
district are female. Previous research sug- and instruction are weak in that they mea-
gests that women administrators may be sure the quantity of principal training and
more active instructional leaders (Hemp- experience rather than the quality. In prior
hill, Griffiths, & Frederiksen, 1962; Salley, research, only measures of quality of ed-
McPherson, & Baehr, 1979). We must em- ucation and previous experience (unavail-
phasize again that the small sample size able to us) have proven useful discrimi-
limits the ability to draw any conclusions nators between principals (Gross & Herriot,
from these data. However, the similarity 1965; Hemphill et al., 1962). This finding
in findings concerning the gender variable is consistent with the results of research
in this and previous studies suggests that on teacher and school effects, which in-
it is worth examining more closely in fu- dicate that structural variables such as the
ture research. This finding needs to be in- proxies used for expertise in this study are
vestigated using a larger sample; if sub- not strong predictors of effectiveness
stantiated, researchers will then need to (Bridge, Judd, & Moock, 1979). The final
investigate why it is that women attend personal variable that we examined was the
more closely to these functions. number of years at the present school site.
Principal age also revealed the begin- This variable did not differentiate among
ning of a pattern. The highly ranked prin- the rankings of the two groups.
cipals were all younger (mean = 43) than Organizational explanations. Differ-
the bottom-ranked group (mean = 49), ences among principals in their instruc-
though it would be difficult to interpret tional management behavior may also be
why a mean difference of 6 years would a function of the environment within which
affect instructional management, even if they work. Research on organizations often
this were a statistically significant differ- notes the effects that context can have on
ence. As with all of the personal variables, managerial behavior. Salley et al. (1979)
this finding is of limited usefulness. Know- found that a number of organizational var-
ing that age may be related to instructional iables significantly affect principals: "Prin-
NOVEMBER 1985

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 235

cipals are captives of their environments amination; interview data would provide
... the size of the school system, size of more appropriate information about how
the school, and number of grade levels in the district office can shape principal be-
the school are organizational variables that havior.
influence the principal's definition of his Combined explanations. Thus far we
or her work and militate against his or her have considered two types of explanations
emerging as an innovator. .... Ethnic and in an attempt to understand the pattern of
socioeconomic characteristics play a sig- instructional management behavior of the
nificant part in defining the work of the principals: explanations based on individ-
principal" (pp. 34-35). ual differences among principals and ex-
In this study, we examine the relation- planations related to organizational fac-
ship between instructional leadership and tors. We have noted that, despite apparent
the following organizational variables: patterns in the data, it is unclear in most
school size, school socioeconomic status, cases how a variable worked to influence
special program management, and district principal behavior. This is partly a func-
office relationship. School size is the only tion of the conceptual framework of the
organizational variable consistently asso- study. In reality, individual and organiza-
ciated with principal instructional man- tional factors are not separate forces; they
agement activity. Principals of the smaller interact with each other to influence be-
schools (mean size = 385 pupils) tend to havior. In this section on combined expla-
be more involved in managing curriculum nations, we attempt to relate individual and
and instruction than principals in the larger organizational factors in order to produce
schools (mean = 600 pupils). This finding a fuller picture of the interplay of influ-
is consistent with previous research on the ences on principal instructional manage-
relationship between school size and prin- ment. We describe how some of the factors
cipal professional leadership (Gross & Her- might interact to produce a high level of
riot, 1965; Salley et al., 1979). This finding instructional management behavior. We
is also notable because the largest school use as an example the top-ranked instruc-
in this study (630 pupils) has fewer pupils tional manager, Terry Harris from Ar-
than many urban elementary schools. Fu- borway Elementary School.' Note that
ture research should examine this variable though this example draws on real data, it
with a larger range of school sizes. is highly speculative in terms of the inter-
The other organizational variables are action effects of the different factors.
less fruitful. Student socioeconomic status Terry moved into administration at a
did not discriminate between the two relatively young age (35) with experience
groups of principals in this analysis. The as an elementary school teacher (6 years)
number and types of special programs in and as a guidance counselor. Her knowl-
a school yield mixed results. The only pat- edge of curriculum and instruction was
tern is that two of the lower-ranked prin- supplemented by staff development pro-
cipals manage schools that house district- grams initiated by the district office during
wide programs for limited and non-English- the time of her promotion to the vice prin-
speaking students. Finally, the relationship cipalship. She had an opportunity to com-
between the principal and the district of- bine this new knowledge with her instruc-
fice as measured by who appointed the tional expertise in her position as a vice
principal also yields mixed results. The two principal. This period of apprenticeship al-
top-rated instructional leaders were ap- lowed her to become familiar with the in-
pointed by the current superintendent, as tricacies of managing two different special
opposed to only one from the bottom programs. This may be important because
group. This variable deserves closer ex- Terry uses the special programs to create

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
236 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

an explicit curricular structure and a affect principal behavior. Survey data will
schoolwide approach to the school's edu- need to be supplemented by interview and
cational program. In addition, as a vice observation data in order to shed light on
principal she had the benefit of working the "hows" and "whys." Longitudinal
with a principal who also took an active evaluation studies will most likely provide
role in managing curriculum and instruc- the final answer concerning the effects of
tion in his school. The influence of this the variables on principal behavior.
principal on Terry's instructional manage-
ment style can be seen in the similarity of Comparison of results with previous
their ratings in certain areas. In particular, research
both stood out among the principals in As we noted earlier, the principals in this
terms of their high visibility in classrooms,
school district frequently engage in in-
the extent of their contact with students,
structional management behavior. This
and the promotion of a strong schoolwide
finding is at odds with results of observa-
reward system. Terry's current assign-
tional studies, which suggest that elemen-
ment to a relatively small school also allows
tary school principals tend to be relatively
her to spend more time working with
teachers and students. She maintains a uninvolved in managing curriculum and
instruction. There are at least three pos-
good relationship with the district office
sible explanations for this discrepancy.
and actively seeks out district curricula and
First, it could be that the structured ob-
staff development programs for her school. servation studies underestimate the in-
For example, she has had her whole staff
structional management behavior that
taking part in a yearlong instructional im-
principals perform. Second, the instru-
provement program that she already com-
ment used in this study may have overes-
pleted herself. She was the first principal
in the district to make the program school-
timated the instructional management ac-
wide and encountered some resistance tivity of the principals. Third, the
among her teachers. The knowledge that discrepancy could result from factors
the superintendent would support her, unique to this particular school district.
however, may have influenced her deci- We noted earlier that studies indicating
sion. that principals are relatively uninvolved in
This brief profile is included to give a managing curriculum and instruction gen-
broader picture of how some of the per- erally employ structured observation tech-
sonal and organizational factors may in- niques. It is possible that these structured
teract to promote instructional manage- observation studies of principal behavior
ment. It does not yield generalizable underestimate the instructional manage-
findings but makes the point that fruitful ment behavior of principals. Greenfield
explanations will most likely result when (1982), Gronn (1982), and Pitner (1982)
we look at the interaction of factors that point out that the structured observation
account for complex behavior. Thus, re- methodology does not measure the sub-
search that attempts to explain principal stance of principal activity. As Greenfield
behavior will need to proceed in several (1982, p. 26) notes in reference to these
overlapping phases. First, large-scale sur- studies, "There is no data of a qualitative
vey studies can be useful in determining nature regarding what actually transpires
the explanatory power of the different var- during the course of a given activity." This
iables. Correlational studies, however, will is a critical limitation on inferences drawn
not be able to establish the validity of re- from these studies. Structured observation
lationships, nor will they be able to provide does not adequately describe the substance
information on how and why the variables of managerial work.
NOVEMBER 1985

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 237

Support for this view can be found in signed a vice principal to share
an observational study of instructional the workload with the principal.
management conducted by Dwyer, Lee, (3) Many teachers and all principals
Rowan, and Bossert (1983). They found received in-service training in in-
that principals engage in frequent instruc- structional strategies, lesson de-
tional management behavior. They con- sign, and classroom management.
cluded that instructional management at (4) All principals participated in ex-
the school site consists of routine behav- tensive and intensive staff devel-
iors that may be unremarkable in and of opment in the areas of instruc-
themselves but that have a cumulative ef- tional supervision and teacher
fect on the school's educational program. evaluation. District office person-
Thus, generalizations based on the struc- nel monitored and reviewed the
tured observation studies concerning the supervision and evaluation prac-
limited involvement of principals in man- tices of the principals.
aging curriculum and instruction may be (5) The principals were also involved
overstated. in the process of curriculum re-
Another possible explanation for the alignment (i.e., curriculum coor-
discrepancy between the findings of this dination) in cooperation with the
study and those of prior research on prin- district office curriculum depart-
cipal behavior concerns the methodology ment.

of this study. It is possible that the instru- (6) The district office collected and
ment used in this study overestimated the reviewed school goals.
frequency of principal instructional man- (7) Districtwide proficiency standards
agement activity in this school district. This were developed and linked to the
explanation cannot be discounted entirely, testing instruments used by the
even though our statistical analyses sug- district.
gest that the instrument does provide re- (8) Promotions to the positions of
liable and valid data on principal behavior. vice principal, principal, and dis-
Further testing of the instrument in other trict office staff development
settings is needed before it can be used trainer were based, to a large ex-
with full confidence.
tent, on instructional expertise.
The third explanation for the discrep-
ancy between this study's findings and those This study was not designed to measure
of prior research concerns the unique the effect of the superintendent's program
characteristics of the research context. The for school improvement. No preinterven-
superintendent of this school district had tion measures of principal behavior were
taken. It seems reasonable, however, to
been implementing a program for school
improvement over a 4-year period, and this suggest that these district policies and
program may have affected the behavior practices may have created a climate in
of the principals. He had initiated the fol- which principals managed instruction more
lowing policies and practices across the dis- actively than in other schools. There are
trict in order to promote instructional several ways in which the district may have
management: influenced principals' behavior.
The promotion policies of the super-
(1) He made explicit his expectation intendent emphasized expertise in curric-
that the principals were to be ulum and instruction. He had made only
highly involved in instructional three promotions to elementary princi-
leadership at the school sites. palships during his first 4 years in the dis-
(2) Each elementary school was as- trict. Yet the two top-rated principals were

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
238 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

among the three appointments. This sug- vation studies' results and the unique con-
gests that the superintendent's promotion text within which the present study took
policy may have had an effect on instruc- place. As we noted, overestimation on the
tional management. part of the instrument cannot be ruled out
The development of the vice princi- as a contributing factor to the discrepancy.
palship may have influenced the instruc- However, the available evidence does not
tional management behavior of the prin- suggest that it is. Further investigation of
cipals in several ways. First, it relieved the principal instructional management be-
principals of some of the time pressures havior in other settings and verification of
inherent in the job, pressures that princi- the Principal Instructional Management
pals contend limit their ability to observe Rating Scale are needed to understand fully
in classrooms. This factor by itself sets the the implications of these findings.
context for this research apart from other
studies of elementary school principal be- Implications for future research
havior. There were two administrators
We make the following recommendations
available in the schools to do the job that for future research on instructional man-
one principal is generally expected to do. agement:
Second, the vice principalship became an
apprenticeship for new principals. Both of (1) Research that examines the ef-
fects of different instructional
the top-ranked instructional leaders in the
district obtained administrative experi- management styles is needed.
ence and instructionally oriented training This would include studying the
as vice principals during the superintend- interaction among various job
ent's tenure. Third, a norm was estab- functions as well as the effects of

lished that promotions would be on the particular policies, practices, and

behaviors. Which functions make
basis of instructionally related skills.
the most difference? Studies that
Therefore, the vice principals had a clear
incentive to participate and excel in dis- investigate the relationship be-
trict-sponsored training programs. tween instructional management
Other areas in which the superintend- behavior and the following varia-
bles are needed most: student
ent's policies may have promoted instruc-
tional management are supervision and achievement, teacher behavior,
evaluation. Most principals do not practice and school climate. The Principal
these job functions consistently or rigor- Instructional Management Rating
ously, yet principals in this district at- Scale2 should be useful for col-

tended to them frequently. The document lecting data in such studies.

analysis and the perceptions of teachers, (2) Studies of instructional manage-
principals, and district office supervisors ment should incorporate qualita-
confirmed this finding. Although no data tive methodologies to generate
were collected concerning the effects of richer descriptive reports about
this close supervision of instruction, under how principals manage curricu-
the conditions in this district, principals do lum and instruction. Particular
appear to supervise and evaluate instruc- attention should be paid to the
tion actively. contextual factors that influence
Thus, the discrepancy between the principal behavior.
findings of this study and earlier obser- (3) The finding that highly ranked
vational studies may be due to either of instructional managers in this dis-
the factors cited above or to a combination trict maintain close connections
of overstatement of the structured obser- to students warrants further

NOVEMBER 1985

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 239

study. What is it about this char- quality of a principal's experi-

acteristic of the principals that ence, education, knowledge, and
transfers to other domains of this behavior.
role?
(7) The organizational factor most in
(4) The relationship between the lev- need of explication in terms of its
els of the organization and their effects on instructional manage-
effects on instructional manage- ment is school size. The relation-
ment should be examined. Re-
ship between school size and in-
search that examines the effects
structional management will best
of the superintendent and district be measured through quantitative
office on students and teachers is
research, but the manner in
needed.
which this contextual variable in-
(5) The finding of this study and
fluences principals will best be
others concerning the relation-
studied through interview and
ship between gender and princi- observation.
pal instructional management in-
dicates a need for more (8) Finally, researchers must remain
aware of the interactive nature of
systematic investigation of this
variable. individual and organizational fac-
tors in terms of their effect on
(6) Better indicators of principal
knowledge of curriculum and in- principal instructional manage-
struction need to be developed. ment. In our search for manipu-
Structural variables that quantify lable variables, we should not lose
principal experience or education sight of the fact that single varia-
are not useful indicators for re- bles are unlikely to provide sub-
search or practice. Future indica- stantial leverage in effecting
tors should be based on lower in- change within complex and vary-
ference measurements of the ing organizational settings.

Appendix
Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale
PART I: Please provide the following information.

(A) School name:

(B) Years working with the current principal at the end of this school year:
1 5-9 More than 15
2-4 10-15

(C) Years experience as a teacher at the end of this school year:

1 5-9 More than 15
2-4 10-15

(D) Grade level you teach:

K-3 7-9

4-6 10-12

Teacher Form 1.1

? Philip Hallinger, 1984

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
240 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

PART II: Please respond to each of the items on this questionnaire by circling the number of the
response that best reflects the job behavior of your principal during the past school year.
Read each statement carefully. Then circle the number that indicates the extent to which you
feel your principal has demonstrated the specific behavior during the past school year.
For each behavior, a 5 represents "Almost Always," a 4 represents "Frequently," a 3 represents
"Sometimes," a 2 represents "Seldom," and a 1 represents "Almost Never." If you have not
observed your principal in a given context and are unable to respond, circle the "?."
Please answer every item.
To what extent does your principal.. . ?

I. FRAMING THE SCHOOL GOALS

Almost Almost

Never Always
1 1
1. Develop goals that seek improvement over current 1 2 3 4 5 ?
levels of academic performance
2. Frame academic goals with target dates 1 2 3 4 5 ?

3. Frame the school's academic goals in terms of staff 1 2 3 4 5 ?

responsibilities for meeting them
4. Use needs assessment or other questionnaires to se- 1 2 3 4 5 ?
cure staff input on goal development
5. Use data on student academic performance when 1 2 3 4 5 ?
developing the school's academic goals
6. Develop goals that are easily translated into class- 1 2 3 4 5 ?
room objectives by teachers

II. COMMUNICATING THE SCHOOL GOALS

7. Communicate the school's academic goals to people 1 2 3 4 5 ?

at school

8. Refer to the school's academic goals in informal 1 2 3 4 5 ?

settings with teachers
9. Discuss the school's academic goals with teachers at 1 2 3 4 5 ?
faculty meetings
10. Refer to the school's academic goals when making 1 2 3 4 5 ?
curricular decisions with teachers

11. Ensure that the school's goals are reflected in 1 2 3 4 5 ?

highly visible displays in the school (e.g., posters or
bulletin boards indicating the importance of read-
ing or math)
12. Refer to the school's goals in student assemblies 1 2 3 4 5 ?

III. SUPERVISING & EVALUATING INSTRUCTION

13. Conduct informal observations in classrooms on a 1 2 3 4 5 ?

regular basis (informal observations are unsched-
uled, last at least 5 min, and may or may not in-
volve written feedback or a formal conference)
14. Ensure that the classroom objectives of teachers 1 2 3 4 5 ?
are consistent with the stated goals of the school
15. Meet with teachers and aides to ensure that they 1 2 3 4 5 ?
are working toward the same objectives

NOVEMBER 1985

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 241

16. Review student work products when evaluating 1 2 3 4 5 ?

classroom instruction

17. Evaluate teachers on academic objectives directly 1 2 3 4 5 ?

related to those of the school

18. Point out specific strengths in teacher instructional 1 2 3 4 5 ?

practices in postobservation conferences
19. Point out specific weaknesses in teacher instruc- 1 2 3 4 5 ?
tional practices in postobservation conferences
20. Note specific strengths of the teacher's instruc- 1 2 3 4 5 ?
tional practices in written evaluations
21. Note specific weaknesses of the teacher's instruc- 1 2 3 4 5 ?
tional practices in written evaluations
22. Note student time on-task in feedback to teachers 1 2 3 4 5 ?
after classroom observations

23. Note specific instructional practices related to the 1 2 3 4 5 ?

stated classroom objectives in written evaluations

IV. COORDINATING THE CURRICULUM

24. Make clear who is responsible for coordinating the 1 2 3 4 5 ?

curriculum across grade levels (e.g., the principal,
vice principal, or a teacher)
25. Ensure that the school's academic goals are trans- 1 2 3 4 5 ?
lated into common curricular objectives
26. Draw on the results of schoolwide testing when 1 2 3 4 5 ?
making curricular decisions
27. Ensure that the objectives of special programs are 1 2 3 4 5 ?
coordinated with those of the regular classrooms
28. Monitor the classroom curriculum to see that it 1 2 3 4 5 ?
covers the school's curricular objectives
29. Assess the overlap between the school's curricular 1 2 3 4 5 ?
objectives and the achievement test(s) used for pro-
gram evaluation
30. Participate actively in the review and/or selection 1 2 3 4 5 ?
of curricular materials

V. MONITORING STUDENT PROGRESS

31. Meet individually with teachers to discuss student 1 2 3 4 5 ?

academic progress
32. Discuss the item analysis of tests with the faculty to 1 2 3 4 5 ?
identify strengths and weaknesses in the instruc-
tional program
33. Use test results to assess progress toward school 1 2 3 4 5 ?
goals
34. Distribute test results in a timely fashion 1 2 3 4 5 ?
35. Inform teachers of the school's performance results 1 2 3 4 5 ?
in written form (e.g., in a memo or newsletter)
36. Inform students of the school's performance results 1 2 3 4 5 ?

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
242 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

37. Identify students whose test results indicate a need 1 2 3 4 5 ?

for special instruction such as remediation or en-
richment

38. Develop or find the appropriate instructional pro- 1 2 3 4 5 ?

gram(s) for students whose test results indicate a
need

VI. PROTECTING INSTRUCTIONAL TIME

39. Ensure that instructional time is not interrupted by 1 2 3 4 5 ?

public-address announcements
40. Ensure that students are not called to the office 1 2 3 4 5 ?
during instructional time
41. Ensure that truant students suffer specified conse- 1 2 3 4 5 ?
quences for missing instructional time
42. Ensure that tardy or truant students make up lost 1 2 3 4 5 ?
instructional time

43. Visit classrooms to see that instructional time is 1 2 3 4 5 ?

used for learning and practicing new skills and con-
cepts

VII. MAINTAINING HIGH VISIBILITY

44. Take time to talk with students and teachers dur- 1 2 3 4 5 ?

ing recess and breaks
45. Visit classrooms to discuss school issues with teach- 1 2 3 4 5 ?
ers and students

46. Attend or participate in cocurricular or extracurri- 1 2 3 4 5 ?

cular activities

47. Cover classes for teachers until a late or substitute 1 2 3 4 5 ?

teacher arrives

48. Tutor or provide direct instruction to students 1 2 3 4 5 ?

VIII. PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR TEACHERS

49. Reinforce superior performance by teachers in staff 1 2 3 4 5 ?

meetings, newsletters, or memos
50. Compliment teachers privately for their efforts or 1 2 3 4 5 ?
performance
51. Acknowledge special effort or performance by 1 2 3 4 5 ?
teachers in memos for their personnel files
52. Reward special efforts by teachers with opportuni- 1 2 3 4 5 ?
ties for professional development (e.g., new roles
or in-service training)

IX. PROMOTING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

53. Inform teachers of opportunities for professional 1 2 3 4 5 ?

development
54. Select in-service activities that are consistent with 1 2 3 4 5 ?
the school's academic goals
NOVEMBER 1985

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 243

55. Support teacher requests for in-service that is di- 1 2 3 4 5 ?

rectly related to the school's academic goals
56. Distribute journal articles to teachers on a regular 1 2 3 4 5 ?
basis

57. Actively support the use of skills acquired during 1 2 3 4 5 ?

in-service training in the classroom
58. Ensure that instructional aides receive appropriate 1 2 3 4 5 ?
training to help students meet instructional objec-
tives

59. Arrange for outside speakers to make presentations 1 2 3 4 5 ?

on instruction at faculty meetings
60. Provide time to meet individually with teachers to 1 2 3 4 5 ?
discuss instructional issues

61. Sit in on teacher in-service activities concerned 1 2 3 4 5 ?

with instruction

62. Set aside time at faculty meetings for teachers to 1 2 3 4 5 ?

share ideas on instruction or information from in-
service activities

X. DEVELOPING AND ENFORCING ACADEMIC STANDARDS

63. Set high standards for the percentage of students 1 2 3 4 5 ?

who are expected to master important instructional
objectives
64. Encourage teachers to start class on time and to 1 2 3 4 5 ?
teach to the end of the period
65. Make known what is expected of students at differ- 1 2 3 4 5 ?
ent grade levels
66. Enforce a promotion standard requiring mastery of 1 2 3 4 5 ?
grade-level expectations
67. Support teachers when they enforce academic poli- 1 2 3 4 5 ?
cies (e.g., on grading, homework, promotion, or
discipline)

XI. PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR LEARNING

68. Recognize students who do superior academic work 1 2 3 4 5 ?

with formal rewards such as an honor roll or men-
tion in the principal's newsletter
69. Use assemblies to honor students for their aca- 1 2 3 4 5 ?
demic work and/or behavior in class
70. Recognize superior student achievement or im- 1 2 3 4 5 ?
provement by seeing students in the office with
their work products
71. Contact parents to communicate improved student 1 2 3 4 5 ?
performance in school

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
244 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

Brookover, W., Schweitzer, J., Schneider, J.,

Beady, C., Flood, P., & Wisenbaker, J.
(1978). Elementary school climate and
Notes school achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 15, 301-318.
Casey, H. (1980). Managerial behavior of princi-
The authors would like to acknowledge the pals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
contributions made to this research by Larry Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Cuban and Edwin Bridges of Stanford Univer- Clark, D. (1980). An analysis of research, de-
sity and Richard P. Mesa of the Milpitas Unified velopment, and evaluation reports on ex-
School District.
ceptional urban elementary schools. In Phi
1. The names used in descriptions pre- Delta Kappa (Ed.), Why do some urban schools
sented are fictitious.
succeed? Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
2. The Principal Instructional Management Cohen, E., & Miller, R. (1980). Coordination
Rating Scale has been revised and may not be and control of instruction. Pacific Sociological
copied without the permission of the first au- Review, 23, 446-473.
thor. The scale is available from Dr. Philip Hal- Cohen, M., Koehler, V., Datta, L., & Timpane,
linger, 122 Pelhamdale Ave., Pelham, NY M. (1981). Instructionally effective schools: Re-
10803.
search area plan. Unpublished research plan
prepared for the National Institute of Ed-
ucation.

Cooley, W., & Leinhardt, G. (1980). The in-

References
structional dimensions study. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2, 7-25.
Cotton, K., & Savard, W. (1980a). The principal
Anderson, C. (1982). The search for school cli-
as instructional leader. Paper prepared for
mate: A review of the research. Review of
the Alaska State Department of Education,
Educational Research, 52, 368-420.
Office of Planning and Research, by the
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1978, May).
Northwest Regional Laboratory, Portland,
Federal programs supporting change: Vol. 8. OR.
Implementing and sustaining innovations.
Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education. Cotton, K., & Savard, W. (1980b). Time factors
in learning. Paper prepared for the Alaska
Bernardin, H. (1977). Behavioral expectation State Department of Education, Office of
scales versus summated scales: A fairer com-
Planhing and Research, by the Northwest
parison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62,
422-427. Regional Laboratory, Portland, OR.
Crowson, R., Hurwitz, E., Morris, V. C., & Por-
Blood, M. (1974). Spin-offs from behavioral ex-
pectation scale performance. Journal of Ap-
ter-Gehrie, C. (1981, March). The urban
plied Psychology, 4, 513-515. principal: Discretionary decision-making in a
Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. large educational organization. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Illinois at Chicago.
(1981). The instructional management role of
Deal, T., & Celotti, L. (1979). "Loose coupling"
the principal: A preliminary review and concep- and the school adiministrator: Some recent re-
tualization. San Francisco: Far West Labo-
search findings. Stanford, CA: Stanford Cen-
ratory for Educational Research and De-
ter for Research and Development in
velopment.
Teaching.
Bridge, G., Judd, C., & Moock, P. (1979). The Denham, C., & Lieberman, A. (1980). Time to
determinants of educational outcomes. Cam- learn. Washington, DC: National Institute
bridge, MA: Ballinger. of Education.
Brookover, W., Beamer, L., Efthim, H., Hath- Dornbusch, S., & Scott, W. (1975). Evaluation
away, D., Lezotte, L., Miller, S., Passalac- and the exercise of authority. San Francisco:
qua, J., & Tornatzky, L. (1982). Creating ef- Jossey-Bass.
fective schools: An inservice program for Dwyer, D. (1984). The search for instructional
enhancing school learning climate and school leadership: Routines and subtleties in the
achievement. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning principal's role. Educational Leadership, 41,
Publications. 32-37.
Brookover, W., & Lezotte, L. (1979). Changes Dwyer, D., Lee, G., Rowan, B., & Bossert, S.
in school characteristics coincident with changes (1983, April). Five principals in action: Per-
in student achievement. East Lansing: Michi- spectives on instructional management. Paper
gan State University. presented at the annual meeting of the
NOVEMBER 1985

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 245

American Educational Research Associa- Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (n.d.). Academic press:
tion, Montreal. Inproving the climate for reading in elementary
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the schools. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford
urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15- University, Stanford, CA.
24. Hallinger, P., Murphy, J., Weil, M., Mesa, R.,
Edmonds, R., & Frederiksen, J. (1978). Search & Mitmran, A. (1983). Effective schools: The
for effective schools: The identification and anal- specific policies and practices of the prin-
ysis of schools that are instructionally effective for cipal. National Association of Secondary School
poor children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Principals Bulletin, 67, 83-91.
University, Center for Urban Studies. Hannaway, J. (1978). The effect of uncertainty on
Eubanks, E., & Levine, D. (1983). A first look managerial behavior: Or who does what, when
at effective schools programs in New York and ... to whom? Unpublished doctoral dis-
City and Milwaukee. Phi Delta Kappan, 64, sertation, Stanford University, Stanford,
697-702. CA.
Fiedler, F., & Chemers, M. (1974). Leadership Hannaway, J., & Sproull, L. (1980). Who's run-
and effective management. Glenview, IL: Scott, ning the show? Coordination and control in
Foresman. educational organizations. Administrator's
Firestone, W., & Herriot, R. (1982). Prescrip- Notebook, 27, 1-4.
tions for effective elementary schools don't Harari, O., & Zedeck, S. (1973). Development
fit secondary schools. Educational Leader- of behaviorally anchored scales for the eval-
ship, 40, 51-53. uation of teaching faculty.Journal of Applied
Freeman, D., Kuhs, T., Porter, A., Floden, R., Psychology, 58, 261-265.
Schmidt, W., & Schwille, J. (1983). Do text- Harnischfeger, A., & Wiley, D. (1984). Time and
books and tests define a national curriculum learning in California schools. Sacramento,
in elementary school mathematics? Elemen- CA: California Testing Program.
tary School Journal, 83, 501-513. Hemphill, J., Griffiths, D., & Frederiksen, N.
Friesen, D., & Duignan, P. (1980). How super- (1962). Administrative performa nce and per-
intendents spend their working time. Ca- sonality. New York: Teachers College, Col-
nadian Administrator, 14, 1-5. umbia University.
Gauthier, W. (1982, March). Connecticut per- Heneman, G. (1974). Comparisons of self and
spectives on instructionally effective schools: A superior ratings of managerial perfor-
model and process. Paper presented at the an- mance.Journal ofApplied Psychology, 58, 638-
nual meeting of the American Educational 642.
Research Association, New York. Lambert, M., & Lambert, L. (1983, April). The
Greenfield, W. (1982, October). Research on study) of staff development: From a particularist
public school principals: A review and recom- system to a systems perspective. Paper presented
mendations. Paper prepared for the National at the annual meeting of the American Ed-
Conference on the Principalship, National ucational Research Association, Montreal.
Institute of Education, Washington, DC. Lasley, T., & Wayson, W. (1982). Character-
Gronn, P. (1982). Methodological perspective: istics of schools with good discipline. Edu-
Neo-Taylorism in educational administra- cational Leadership, 40, 28-31.
tion. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18, Latham, G., Fay, C., & Saari, L. (1979). The
17-35. development of behavioral observation
Gross, N., & Herriot, R. (1965). Staff leadership scales for appraising the performance of
in schools: A sociological study. New York: foremen. Personnel Psychology, 32, 299-311.
Wiley. Latham, G., & Wexley, K. (1977). Behavioral
Hallinger, P. (1981, July). Review of research on observation scales for performance ap-
school effectiveness. Unpublished report pre- praisal purposes. Personnel Psychology, 30,
pared for the Carnegie Foundation for the 255-268.
Advancement of Teaching. Latham, G., & Wexley, K. (1981). Increasing pro-
Hallinger, P. (1982). The development of behav- ductivity through performance appraisal. Menlo
iorally anchored rating scales for assessing the Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
instructional management behavior of princi- Lawler, E. (1971). Pay and organizational effec-
pals. Unpublished manuscript. Stanford tiveness: A psychological view. New York:
University, Stanford, CA. McGraw-Hill.
Hallinger, P. (1983, May). Assessing the instruc- Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. (1982). The
tional management behavior of principals. Un- role of the elementary principal in program
published doctoral dissertation, Stanford improvement. Review of Educational Re-
University, Stanford, CA. search, 52, 309-339.

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
246 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

Levin, H. (1978, June). Educational production Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1984). Policy anal-
theory and teacher inputs. Paper presented at ysis at the local level: A framework for ex-
the Conference on Educational Finance and panded investigation. Educational Evalua-
Productivity, University of Chicago. tion and Policy Analysis, 6, 5-14.
Levine, D. (1982). Successful approaches for Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Mitman, A. (1983).
improving academic achievement in inner- Problems with research on educational
city elementary schools. Phi Delta Kappan, leadership: Issues to be addressed. Educa-
63, 523-526. tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 5, 297-
Levine, D., & Stark, J. (1982). Instructional and 305.
organizational arrangements that improve Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., Weil, M., & Mitman,
student achievement in inner-city schools. A. (1983). Instructional leadership: A con-
Educational Leadership, 40, 41-46. ceptual framework. Planning and Changing,
Lezotte, L., Hathaway, D., Miller, S., Passalac- 14, 137-149.
qua, J., & Brookover, W. (n.d.). School learn- Murphy, J., Weil, M., Hallinger, P., & Mitman,
ing climate and student achievement: A social A. (1982). Academic press: Translating high
systems approach to increased student learning. expectations into school policies and class-
East Lansing: Center for Urban Affairs, room practices. Educational Leadership, 40,
College of Urban Development and Insti- 22-27.
tute for Research on Teaching, Michigan Murphy, J., Weil, M., Hallinger, P., & Mitman,
State University. A. (1985). School effectiveness: A concep-
Lipham, J. (1981). Effective principal, effective tual framework. Educational Forum, 49, 361-
school. Reston, VA: American Association 374.
of School Administrators. New York State Office of Performance Review.
Little, J. (1982). Norms of collegiality and ex- (1974, March). School factors influencing read-
perimentation: Workplace conditions of ing achievement: A case study of two inner city
school success. American Educational Re-
schools. Albany, NY: Author.
search Journal, 19, 325-340. Persell, C., Cookson, P., & Lyons, H. (1982,
Lortie, D. (1969). The balance of control and October). Effective principals: What do we know
autonomy in elementary school teaching. In from various educational literatures? Paper
A. Etzioni (Ed.), The semi-professions and their presented at the National Conference on
organization. New York: Free Press. the Principalship, National Institute of Ed-
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological ucation, Washington, DC.
study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Peterson, K. (1977-1978). The principal's tasks.
March, J. (1978). American public school ad- Administrator's Notebook, 26, 1-4.
ministration: A short analysis. School Review, Pitner, N. (1982, March). The Mintzberg method:
86, 217-250.
What have we really learned? Paper presented
March, J., & Olsen, J. (1976). Ambiguity and choice
at the annual meeting of the American Ed-
in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Univer- ucational Research Association, New York.
sitetsforlaget.
Purkey, S., & Smith, M. (1983). Effective schools:
Martin, W., & Willower, D. (1981). The man-
A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 427-
agerial behavior of high school principals. 452.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 17, 69-
90. Rowan, B., Dwyer, D., & Bossert, S. (1982,
McCormack-Larkin, M., & Kritek, W. (1982). March). Methodological considerations in the
study of effective principals. Paper presented
Milwaukee's project RISE. Educational
Leadership, 40, 16-21. at the annual meeting of the American Ed-
ucational Research Association, New York.
McLaughlin, M., & Marsh, D. (1978). Staff de-
velopment and school change. Teachers Col- Rutter, M., Maugham, B., Mortimore, P., Ous-
lege Record, 80, 70-94. ton, J., & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized hours: Secondary schools and their effects on chil-
organizations: Formal structure as myth and dren. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83,
340-363. Salley, C., McPherson, R., & Baehr, M. (1979).
Miles, M. (1983). Unraveling the mystery of in- What principals do: A preliminary occu-
stitutionalization. Educational Leadership, 41, pational analysis. In D. Erikson & T. Relier
14-19. (Eds.), The principal in metropolitan schools.
Murnane, R. (1981). Interpreting the evidence Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
on school effectiveness. Teachers College Re- Shoemaker,J., & Fraser, H. (1981). What prin-
cord, 39, 362-367. cipals can do: Some implications from stud-
NOVEMBER 1985

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 247

ies of effective schooling. Phi Delta Kappan, Thornton, G. (1968). The relationship between
63, 178-182. supervisory- and self-appraisals of executive
Sirois, H., & Villanova, R. (1982, March). The- performance. Personnel Psychology, 21, 441-
ory into practice: A theoretical and research base 455.
for the characteristics of effective schools. Paper Thornton, G. (1980). Psychometric properties
presented at the annual meeting of the of self-appraisals of job performance. Per-
American Educational Research Associa-
tion, New York. sonnel Psychology, 33, 236-271.
Venezky, R., & Winfield, L. (1979). Schools that
Smith, P., & Kendall, L. (1963). Retranslation
succeed beyond expectations in teaching reading
of expectations: An approach to the con-
struction of unambiguous anchors for rat- (Tech. Rep. No. 1). Newark: University of
Delaware.
ing scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47,
149-155. Walberg, H., & Shanahan, T. (1983). High
Sproull, L. (1981). Managing educational pro- school effects on individual students. Edu-
grams: A micro-behavioral analysis. Human cational Researcher, 12, 4-9.
Organization, 40, 113-122. Weick, K. (1982). Administering education in
Stallings, J. (1980). Tips to principals from re- loosely coupled schools. Phi Delta Kappan,
search on effective strategies for teaching basic 63, 673-676.
skills in secondary schools. Paper presented to Wellisch, J., MacQueen, A., Carriere, R., &
the National Study Group for Secondary Duck, G. (1978). School organization and
School Principals. management in successful schools. Sociology
Stallings, J., & Mohlman, G. (1981). School pol- of Education, 51, 211-226.
icy, leadership style, teacher change, and student
Willis, Q. (1980). The work activity of school
behavior in eight schools: Final report. Moun-
principals: An observational study. Journal
tain View, CA: Stallings Teaching and of Educational Administration, 18, 27-54.
Learning Institute.
Sweeney, J. (1982). Research synthesis on ef- Willower, D., & Kmetz, J. (1982, March). The
fective school leadership. Educational Lead- managerial behavzior of elementa ry school prin-
ership, 39, 346-352. cipals. Paper presented at the annual meet-
Teel, K. (1978). Self-appraisal revisited. Person- ing of the American Educational Research
nelJournal, 57, 364-367. Association, New York.
Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. Wynne, E. (1980). Looking at schools: Good, bad,
New York: McGraw-Hill.
and indifferent. Lexington, MA: Heath.

This content downloaded from 129.59.122.22 on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:39:56 UTC
View publication stats
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms