Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Philosophies of Principals Steeber & Graham Brown - National FORUM of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief - www.nationalforum.com

Philosophies of Principals Steeber & Graham Brown - National FORUM of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief - www.nationalforum.com

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4|Likes:
Philosophies of Principals Steeber & Graham Brown - National FORUM of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief - www.nationalforum.com
Philosophies of Principals Steeber & Graham Brown - National FORUM of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief - www.nationalforum.com

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: William Allan Kritsonis on Jun 30, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/06/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALVOLUME 30, NUMBER 2, 2013
THE PHILOSOPHIES OF PRINCIPALS OFEXEMPLARY AND RECOGNIZEDCAMPUSES
Robert Steeber, EdDRegion XI Education Service CenterCasey Graham Brown, PhDTexas A&M University-Commerce
ABSTRACTThis study examined the philosophical profiles of Texas secondary principalswho had led their campuses to an exemplary or recognized status. Philosophicalareas were studied to determine whether a significant correlation could befound between highly-rated principals’ philosophies. The epistemology,axiology, and ontology of the study’s participants were developed. Principalswith successful campuses were similar regardless of campus rating, campustype, gender, experience level, student population, campus population, campusethnicity, or campus socioeconomic status.
Introduction
The responsibilities of a campus principal surpass those of maintaining campus security, supervising teachers, monitoring student behavior, and balancing campus finances. The main charge of  principals today, and center of much literature on the subject of educational leadership, is raising student achievement. While the principal’s impact on learning “may be indirect, it is crucial” (Kaplan,Owings, & Nunnery, 2005, p. 29). The ability to meet state standardsis a leading concern for the public school leaders. Legislation such as
61
 
62
 
 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
 
the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 placed the publicschool accountability issue at the nation’s doorstep.The public education system for the state of Texas has not beenimmune, although the issue for Texas was not new to a state that wasalready involved in high-stakes testing and accountability. Each year,Texas school leaders wait for two important accountability pieces: aSchool Report Card, the state’s rating, and Adequate Yearly Progress,the federal government’s report on accountability.
Purpose of the Study
Schools need strong leadership to be productive in the Texasaccountability system. Principals must have a great deal of skill andability to lead a campus through the challenges of present dayaccountability demands (Barth, 1990) as well as to “publicly answer for the performance of the schools under their guidance” (Kaplan etal., p. 42). To better understand effectiveness in the context of accountability, leaders who have been capable of attaining highaccountability ratings needed to be identified and a profile of their educational philosophy was in need of development. The constructionof these philosophical profiles was conducted to gain insight into the beliefs held by these successful schools as indicated by the high stateratings.
Theoretical Framework 
To define leadership, there must be a much deepe philosophical analysis of the phenomenon. As a summation for afoundation, there should be a synthesis of fundamental underpinningsthat make the leader or define the leadership philosophy. Since the beginning of the 20
th
century, organizational culture has developedfrom the simplistic ideology of scientific management into the morecomplex and environmentally conscious theories introduced in the
 
 ___________________________________ROBERT STEEBER AND CASEY GRAHAM BROWN
 
63
 
later part of the 20
th
century. Contrasting early leaders such as Fredrick Taylor, the father of Scientific Management, John Dewey, thedeveloper of the scientific method, or Max Weber, the theorist whointroduced the Bureaucracy Theory with McGregor’s Theory X andTheory Y or Contingency Theories developed by Fred Fielder, or PaulHersey and Kenneth Blanchard (Marion, 2002), leadership theory hasdeveloped from “Plan, organize, and, control, control, control”(Morgan, 1986, p. 26) to a less rigid approach.In a complex world, leadership responsibility has become morecomplex to meet challenges. The person in charge must possess skillsto be a leader and manager and have the capacity to understand theskills appropriate for the activities (Marion, 2002). Gaziel (2003)examined educational leadership as separate skills of leading andmanaging. According to Gaziel, “School principals tend, in the presentsample, to use multiple frames in solving problems” (p. 484). Thestudy’s objective was to predict the leadership and managerial abilitiesof the campus principal based on the organizational metaphorsestablished by the work of Morgan (1986) and the frames of theseorganizations based on the research of Bolman and Deal (1984).Morgan symbolized organizations as machines (structural), organisms(human-resource), political systems (political), or brains (symbolic),and according to Bolman and Deal, the leadership style best suited for the establishment must model behavior that was appropriate for any of the 4 types of organizations.The leader must define for himself or herself what is true(epistemology), what is real (ontology), and what is right (axiology).From that point, the leader must either communicate these philosophies to the organization or, through human resource practices,find individuals who are similar in thought and place them into open positions. Those organizational members, as well as any new memberswho adhere to this vision, will work within the philosophical mission,or the leader, unable to accommodate change, will be removed(Wheatley, 1999). 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->