Leadership Responsibilities of the

Community Minded-Principal
The Small School Principal and School-Community Relations. Small Schools Fact
Sheet.

Because the principal of a small school is most directly responsible for maintaining the
relationship between the school and the community, he or she must develop a strategy for
school-community relations which takes into account the community's values and power
hierarchy.

This task involves considering many factors including those which are examined in this Digest:
the role of the principal and of the community, potential problems, evaluation procedures, and
ways to involve the community.

WHAT CAN PRINCIPALS DO?

Small school principals have the opportunity to interact with the community in many ways that
may help to develop positive relations. For instance, Wilson and Stansberry (l976) suggest that
principals might:

--interpret school programs for the community

--determine community expectations of the school

--communicate with parents through the media and in group conferences

--arrange for parents to visit the school

--work with parent associations and related groups

--interact with school critics

--plan and coordinate the visits of school people to homes of students

--initiate special publicity campaigns

--support student publications

--appraise school community relations

--work with industry and community image groups

--determine the community power structure

Another way principals can contribute to the community is by recruiting community-minded
teachers, as several studies have indicated. Lewis and Edington (1983) concluded that
administrators should recruit teachers with positive community ties. The most successful
teachers appear to be those who are welcome in community homes, participate in community
activities, and invite community members to their homes (McBeath and others 1983b).

Seifert and Kurtz (l983), as well as Lewis and Edington (1983), advise principals to involve
community members in recruiting and selecting teachers who fit their communities. In addition,
recruitment materials should include community information (Seifert and Kurtz 1983).

Administrators who have a community-oriented philosophy are more likely to have positive
school-community relations (Charlton 1983). For this reason, McBeath and others (1983a) claim
that principals, particularly new ones, should participate in civic activities outside of the school.

WHAT CAN THE COMMUNITY DO?

Because small and rural schools often are closely identified with the community, community
cooperation is not difficult to secure (Pelton 1983). Many people are eager, or at least willing, to
cooperate with the school in working towards the development of positive community relations.
Citizens might assist the school principal by doing the following:

--serving on staff development planning committees

--identifying resource people in the community

--teaching minicourses on local history, industry, and interesting area people (a district attorney
might teach about juvenile justice or a social worker about child abuse) (Pelton 1983)

--serving on advisory boards for various programs (Lewis and Edington 1983)

--assisting in the recruitment of teachers who fit the community (Seifert and Kurtz 1983; Lewis
and Edington 1983)

WHAT PROBLEMS MIGHT PRINCIPALS ENCOUNTER?

Differing expectations and power struggles between community groups or between school
administrators and community groups can result in problems for the principal.

In a study of rural Alaskan schools, McBeath and others (1983a) reported that a majority of
principals felt parents expected to be involved in the operation of the school or its processes. On
the other hand, fewer than half of the principals reported being involved in civic and community
affairs unrelated to the school.

A principal might face some of the following dilemmas while managing school-community
relations:
--school boards and administrators who are fearful of losing control

--the need to be all things to all people

--disagreement about the meaning of community involvement

--reluctance of some teaching staff to cooperate in community involvement (Husen 1982)

HOW CAN PRINCIPALS EVALUATE SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS?

Because of limited time, principals need to determine carefully the most feasible methods for
evaluating each situation. Possible means of evaulation include:

--needs assessments conducted among local businesses and/or citizens' groups to determine
community needs for various programs

--follow-up studies of graduates

--citizen/faculty/administration team reviews of school relations

--surveys of staff memberships in churches, service clubs, and other organizations

HOW CAN PRINCIPALS INCREASE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT?

Bruner (1981) lists the following 10 ways to get the community to come to the school:

--extend an invitation

--make the back-to-school night exciting and productive

--develop a community resource file

--stage a curriculum fair or exhibit

--conduct career days

--use parent conferences to explain school programs and to resolve misunderstandings

--allow the school building to serve community activities

--facilitate open discussion (for example, at a school lunch) between parents and principal

--recruit community volunteers

--send out school newsletters

McBeath and others (1983a) found that administrators felt assigning homework was a way of
involving parents in the school. A majority of the administrators surveyed also stated that parents
wanted feedback from teachers and principals on how well their children were doing in school.

The same study found that successful school-community relations prevailed in schools which
allowed citizens to use the library; advertised events by newspaper, radio, or television; had a
cafeteria or restaurant service; or opened gym or pool facilities to community members.

Other sucessful efforts to promote positive school-community relations include:

--developing citizen volunteer programs

--establishing senior citizen programs

--informing persons living near the school of school events

--having informal breakfasts, rap sessions, tours of the school

--inviting service clubs and other organizations to meet in the school (Husen 1982)

--teaming citizens, faculty, and administrators to assess linkages to community groups that are
not presently being reached

--identifying "opinion leaders" in the community and involving these individuals (Rogers 1983)

The emerging
supervisory role of the
principal
The Emerging Supervisory Role of the Elementary Principal An effective program of supervision
has traditionally been considered an essential part of American education. Changes and the
development of various supervisory programs have been identified at all periods throughout the history
of American education. Before the turn of the century, supervisory programs were administered by lay
individuals', members of the clergy, the school clerk, or the school superintendent. Programs of
supervision have shown transitions through types administered by specialists, through those imposing
results of research by scientific methods, through democratic human relations, and into programs that
involve large group processes.

The principal as a supervisory member of the educational staff, however, is a relative

newcomer. Because of clerical and instructional duties, the supervisory role of the elementary principal
lagged far behind that of the superintendent and did not become well known until the twentieth
century (Lucio and McMiel, 51:5). The elementary principal, then, has not been considered an accepted
member of the supervisory staff until comparatively modern times.

Although many authors have aptly described the development of the supervisory role of the
elementary school principal, the succint summary offered by Cramer and Domain seems most
appropriate for this writer’s purpose:

1. One-teacher Stage: Chief Duty Teaching. One-teacher stage began with the first public
schools. Because the school had only one teacher, there was no need for a principal. Later, as schools
grew in size, one of the most successful teachers in each building was given some authority, but
continued as a full-time teacher.

2. The Head Teacher Stage: Chief Duty Teaching. After the 1840’s , the head teacher was called
upon to assume certain building duties, and was paid additionally for the increased assignment. This
stage represented the beginning of the idea that administrative duties in an elementary school deserve
extra compensation.' This stage of development still exists in many smaller elementary schools.

3. Teaching Principal Stage: Chief Duty Teaching. School superintendents found various
problems in elementary schools that needed skillful and prompt attention, so the administrative
responsibilities of the teaching principal were increased. To enable teaching principals to accept the
additional responsibilities, superintendents gave partial relief from teaching duties.

4. Building Principal Stage: Chief Duty Administration. Resulted when school officials accepted
the premise that it was desirable to have the principal devote his full energies to administrative duties.
This type of principalship did not become common until about 1880. Important respohsibilites were
those of overseeing janitors and their work, attendance, conduct and health of students order and
distribution of supplies, and inventories of stock rooms.

5. Supervising Principal Stage: Chief Duty Supervision and Educational Leadership. Since
approximately 1920, the elementary principal has increasingly come to be recognized as the supervisory
head of the classroom, the school, and the community. Has become the key person in the development
of an effective school and community relationship (Cramer and Domain, 12:360-4).

Many authors agree that the elementary principalship is now generally recognized and accepted
as a supervisory position. Harold Spears (68:187) writes that, "In those elementary schools where
principals are freed of instructional duties, direct classroom supervision has been commonly
established." He continues with the note that elemen tary principals in San Francisco, California,
commonly spend from onethird to one-half of their school days in classroom supervision. Jacobson,
Reavis, and Logsdon (42:20-1) agree that school boards and superintendents have encouraged
elementary principals to accept the supervisory responsibility, and comment that, "Authorities in school
administration for years have stressed the importance of the principal’s devoting much time to the
supervision of instruction." McKean and Mills (52:127) agree that the principal typically carries the
supervisory load, but the summary statement by Curtin (13:207) is an apt expression of the professional
opinion of many authors.

Of all those who have responsibility for improvement of instruction, the elementary school
principal holds a.unique position . . . perhaps more than any other supervisory personnel, he is involved
in the ongoing day-to-day work of the school.

The supervisory role of the elementary school principal appears firmly established, but it has not
become stable. During an era of change— in society, in education, and in programs of supervision— it is
imperative that elementary principals accept the supervisory responsibility which has been offered, and
continue the search for those supervisory practices which will result in the most effective instructional
programs. Within his own school, the principal is expected to supervise the programs under his
direction. How he views his supervisor role can have a direct influence upon his success with this activity
(.Goldman, 27:48). Mr. Ernest H. Hofmann (58:1), immediate past president of the.Montana
Department of Elementary School Principals, hinted at the ramifications involved when he wrote in his
letter of welcome in November of 1969, "The concept of the elementary principal has experienced quite
a change in the past ten or fifteen years. No longer is the position a keeper of books, a counter of lunch
money, or merely a title." His statement clearly implies that currently successful elementary principals
are concerned primarily with effective leadership practices rather than with managerial tasks. In
Montana, a state with only two recognized metropolitan areas, the supervisory role of the elementary
school principal is particularly important. In typically smaller school districts which cannot provide the
services of central office supervisory personnel, the elementary principal is obligated to assume the
leadership role for the improvement of instruction.. The principal'"s A' 1 ' . v V 15 obligation to a
program of supervision has been recognized by various organizations and individuals. The Standards for
Accreditation of Montana Elementary Schools, printed by the office of the state superintendent of
public instruction in March of 1970 (60:4), specifically states that:

Schools employing eight to twelve teachers shall be administered by a qualified, certified,

elementary principal who devotes ' at least one-half of each school day to supervision and for whom
adequate clerical assistance is provided.

When speaking in Helena in 1964, Dr. Robert J. Alfonso (1:1-2) stressed the supervisory
importance of the Montana elementary principalship in his address to the Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development,

From what I have been able to find out, one way in which Montana differs from numerous other
states is that you do not have a large number of personnel specifically designated as "supervisors". On
the contrary, the supervision done in Montana (if done at all) is the responsibility of an administrator
most often a building principal.

Although the Montana elementary principal has only recently come to be recognized as an
administrator who is responsible for programs in elementary supervision, current evidence reflects his
general acceptance as a member of the supervisory team, and also suggests that he must be prepared
to offer the instructional leadership essential to effective programs of instruction. The increased
responsibility of the elementary principal is consistent with the prediction of authors who anticipate
larger elementary school systems with increased stress 16 upon the role of the principal as the
supervisor of instruction. They predict that clerical assistance will be increased so that those routine
duties which are presently being performed by principals will be handled by school clerks (Stoops and
Marks, 72:88). Although supervisory responsibility for the elementary principal has been tardy in general
acceptance, a future of continued and increased responsibility appears assured.

Problems in supervision
III. MAJOR PROBLEMS

Ultimately, the overarching objective of these multiple tasks and roles is the improvement of
both the quality of teaching and the efficiency of the system. But - and this is a recurrent theme in
nearly all countries, developed and developing, centralized or decentralized, with autonomous or tightly
controlled supervisors - supervision and support services all too seldom achieve that objective. They are
facing a certain number of difficulties in their functioning, which greatly reduce their efficiency and their
ultimate impact on what is going on in the schools and in the classrooms. Som e of the problems are as
old as the supervision structures themselves; others are directly linked to recent changes in the way s in
which school managemen t is conceived.

A fairly long list of interrelated problems is discussed in the existing literature, which will be
summarized under different headings. A first set of issues is related to the deterioration of the working
conditions under which supervision services operate. Others have to do with more profound conflicts
between the different roles which supervisors are asked to play. Finally, a number of difficulties derive
from the w a y in which supervision services are managed and monitored.

Working conditions

The working conditions of supervisors are bad, from several points of view. Not only, as has
been seen, do supervisors have many different tasks. These have lately become at the same time more
overwhelming and more difficult to implement.

Lack of staff

Firstly their tasks have become more overwhelming, because the number of teachers and of
schools to be inspected has increased dramatically during recent decades, while the number of
inspectors has not been Current issues in supervision: a literature review following the same trend.
Consequently, there is a lack of staff and inspectors complain that they have too many schools to
supervise. Too muc h time and energy is spent in report writing and administrative duties, while, again,
professional contacts with the teachers are being reduced to a minimum.

The situation was already giving cause for concern some 20 years ago: primary inspectors in
Pakistan, Venezuela, Peru and Nigeria, respectively, were in charge of, on average, 150,250, 300 and
almost 400 teachers (Lyons and Pritchard, 1976, p.23). Since then, in many countries the situation has
deteriorated. Lebanon, for instance, did not create any ne w inspection posts between 1967 and the
early 1980s, but saw in the same period the number of teachers being multiplied by five (Aboumrad,
1983, p. 335). Several countries, moreover, do not fill all existing posts. In Bangladesh, in 1992, about 40
per cent of posts for secondary supervisors was left vacant. O n average, one supervisor had
responsibility for about 100 schools. Because of this high vacancy rate, the actual number is about 150
(Bangladesh MOE , 1992, p. 45). This situation, surprisingly, also prevails in some developed countries,
for instance Italy, where the secondary school inspection corps has never been fully filled, since its
creation in 1974 (Hopes, 1993, p. 54).

Lack of means

Second, supervision tasks are becoming more difficult to implement: the daily functioning of
supervision and support services seems to have suffered unduly from the economic and resulting
financial crisis. It is very difficult to present hard financial data to prove this point, as the budgets of
these services are generally subsumed in, for example, 'administrative spending' or 'financing of regional
offices'. However, the effects of the financial squeeze are not difficult to perceive. Consequently, not
only are there not enough inspectors, but because of successive budgetary cuts there is a lack of means
for them to operate properly: they are badly paid, they have no means of transport, travel allowances
are insignificant, etc. In a large country such as Niger, the allocation for fuel to travel in the country,
Major problems per inspector, is the equivalent of US$20 per month. O n average one inspector is in
charge of 50 schools and some 200 teachers. But in reality an inspector can only visit some 20 teachers
per year, namely those that stay in schools which are close to the headquarters (Da Costa, 1994). The
situation was not muc h better in Senegal, where "in 1985, only 28 vehicles served more than 600 staff
in 41 regional directorates" and only slightly so in Kenya, where "with 225 vehicles for some 600
supervisory staff, inspectors rarely visit schools because of limited transportation, bad roads and bad
weather" (Lockheed and Verspoor, 1991, p. 121). This is a situation which is again not limited to the
least developed countries. It exists also, undoubtedly on a different scale, in, for example, France: the
inspecteurs pédagogiques régionaux complain about "the lack of space and poor equipment in terms of
logistics (...) a lack of communication and editorial instruments (...) the absence of a public relations
budget" (Perier, 1995, p. 4).

Absence in the most remote schools

This lack of material and huma n resources, combined with the lack of staff and the overload of
tasks, results in the near absence of supervision staff in especially the most remote schools. Indeed,
particularly in developing countries, where communication and transport problems add to the
difficulties, man y schools remain unvisited for a long time. The schools most to suffer are those which
are isolated and probably most in need of supervision and support. Recent IIEP research on samples of
schools in Madhya Pradesh in India, on Guinea, on Zhejiang in China and on Puebla in Mexico confirms
this (Carrón and Ta Ngoc, 1996). In Puebla, less than half the schools were visited more than three times
during the year (Schmelkes et al., 1996, p. 84). In Guinea, more than 10 per cent of schools was never
visited over the last year, not even by the Directeur pédagogique de la sous-préfecture, wh o is based
closest to schools (Martin and Ta Ngoc, 1993, p. 197). The same situation seems to prevail in Madhya
Pradesh (Govinda and Varghese, 1993, p. 89). In each of the four cases, the rural schools, and in
particular the more remote ones, were worst off. At secondary level, the situation is generally better,
because of the smaller number of schools and their more central location. But at this level also Current
issues in supervision: a literature review there are significant problems. In Bangladesh, for example, a
1992 survey "found that on average a secondary school was visited 1.92 times over a five-year period"
and a 1986 study "revealed that 7 per cent of the nongovernment and 33 per cent of the government
schools were never inspected during a five-year period" (Bangladesh MOE , 1992, p. 45). Still fewer of
these visits cover all subjects, which could mean that some subject teachers might remain unvisited for
the major part of their career. In a relatively well-endowed country such as Malaysia, about half of all
science teachers had not received more than one supervision visit in the last two years, of which 10 per
cent had not been visited at all (Bte Syed Zin and Lewin, 1993, p. 168).

Even district-based inspectors, it can be concluded from studies in, for example, Burundi,
Thailand and Zaïre (Eisemon et al., 1992; Prouty et al., 1993) are not able to visit schools regularly
enough for their interventions to have a significant impact on student learning. This is not really
surprising, whe n one considers that the staff do not always live in the district where they work, but
prefer a more developed town centre. Neither do they always have an office or a professional centre
from which to organize their work (e.g. Bude, 1995, p. 137 on Malawi).

It would be incorrect to blame the neglect of supervision and support services by policy-makers
fully on the existing scarcity of resources, resulting from the economic crisis. It would be equally
incorrect to expect therefore that, should more funds be made available, their efficiency and
competence would easily be improved. The development of a strong supervision system received little
attention, even before the financial crisis struck. These services and officers indeed seem to be the
victims of a more structural neglect, the result arguably of an under-estimation of their tasks. This
structural neglect takes the form, on the one hand, of a cumbersome job description, characterized by
internal conflicts and, on the other hand, of weak management of supervision services.