This article was downloaded by: [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca]

On: 27 February 2014, At: 08:25

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

School Leadership & Management:

Formerly School Organisation
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20

Principals' influence on instructional

quality: insights from US schools
a
Susan Printy
a
College of Education , Michigan State University , East Lansing,
Michigan, USA
Published online: 12 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Susan Printy (2010) Principals' influence on instructional quality: insights from
US schools, School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 30:2, 111-126, DOI:
10.1080/13632431003688005

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632431003688005

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 School Leadership and Management
Vol. 30, No. 2, April 2010, 111
126

Principals’ influence on instructional quality: insights from US schools

Susan Printy*

College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

This article seeks to explain the ways in which leadership makes a difference to the
quality of instruction in US schools by reviewing research published since 2000.
The review of research is presented in three major sections, organised according to
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 08:25 27 February 2014

the methodology used in each study. The first section looks into quantitative
studies that probe the structural relationships among members and activities
related to teaching and learning. Primarily drawing on surveys completed by
school stakeholders, these studies uncover patterns of influence using advanced
statistical methods. The second section summarises findings from qualitative case
study research, which provide specific examples of conditions that support the
leadership patterns previously identified. The final section offers further
explanations of how these patterns of influence operate by examining the
alignment of formal and social components of interactions through network
methodology.
Keywords: principal leadership; teacher leadership; quality instruction

This article seeks to explain the ways in which leadership makes a difference to the
quality of instruction in US schools by reviewing research published since 2000. In
the US, K-12 schools entered the new century with increasing demands on school
principals to raise student achievement under intense public scrutiny as a result of
No Child Left Behind. That legislation changed the context within which school-
based educators work, as it shifted accountability demands from inputs and
processes to outcomes (Lugg et al. 2002). The school became the unit of analysis
for improvement, and the principal of the school the one ultimately responsible for
increasing student performance.
Research on school level leadership has long sought to determine whether or not
principals have an influence on student level outcomes, particularly on student
achievement. When research focused on the activities and behaviours of principals as
measures of leadership, results suggested that principals have indirect influence on
students through teachers and instructional cultures (Hallinger and Heck 1998).
More recently, thinking about what constitutes school leadership has broadened, and
as a result, approaches to measuring leadership in research have expanded. Based
on their synthesis of research, Leithwood et al. (2004) stated that school leadership
is second only to teaching in terms of impact on student learning. Exploring
the influence of various types or conceptions of leadership, Robinson, Lloyd, and
Rowe (2008) conclude that school leaders who engage in activity closely connected to
the classroom are more likely to positively influence student learning outcomes.

*Email: sprinty@msu.edu
ISSN 1363-2434 print/ISSN 1364-2626 online
# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13632431003688005
http://www.informaworld.com
 112 S. Printy

Two important themes emerge from these reviews: (1) principal leadership is
important to student learning; and (2) principals influence student learning by
working with (or through) teachers or other classroom-related factors. The research
directs attention to the leadership contributions that teachers make, supporting the
idea that student achievement is higher in schools where principals and teachers
work collaboratively rather than in totally different spheres. Additionally, the
prominence of teaching and leading as factors related to student learning under-
scores the importance of learning more about the relationship of leadership to
teaching.
The studies reviewed here present a broad range of ways that researchers have
recently used to explore the influence that school principals have on the instructional
choices that teachers make, individually and collectively. The studies take numerous
theoretical lenses, exploring styles of principal leadership (e.g., transformational,
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 08:25 27 February 2014

instructional), conceptions that integrate principal and teacher leadership contribu-

tions (e.g., integrated, distributed), and sociocultural approaches to work and
learning (e.g., communities of practice, social capital). Some studies take into
account varying contexts (e.g., grade level, accountability pressure). Methodologi-
cally, the set of studies represent a broad range, including quantitative studies
exploring structural relationships among school and classroom factors, qualitative
case studies examining school reform efforts, and network analysis (from both
quantitative and qualitative perspectives) in schools actively working to improve.
Some studies utilise mixed methodology. The focus of this review is summarising
what recent research says about how principals work with and through teachers to
enhance the quality of instruction in schools. The assumption left unexplored in this
review is that changes in teaching will result in improved student performance
outcomes. Studies chosen are meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive.
The review of research is presented in three major sections, organised according
to the methodology used in each study. The first section looks into quantitative
studies that probe the structural relationships among members and activities related
to teaching and learning. Primarily drawing on surveys completed by school
stakeholders, these studies uncover patterns of influence using advanced statistical
methods. The second section summarises findings from qualitative case study
research, providing specific examples of conditions that support the leadership
patterns previously identified. The final section offers further explanations of how
these patterns of influence operate by examining the alignment of formal and social
components of interactions through network methodology.

Patterns of influence
Mutuality
The first of the quantitative studies makes use of principals’ responses to queries
regarding their personal influence and the influence of various other stakeholders on
decisions in the instructional and supervisory domains in their schools (Marks and
Nance 2007). Utilising a large US database, researchers explored how principals’
perceptions of their relative influence varied according to the strength of their state’s
accountability context, and confirmed researchers’ hypothesis that accountability
makes a difference in how principals perceive their work (i.e., as supported or
 School Leadership and Management 113

constrained). The instructional domain of activity involves establishing curriculum,

setting performance standards, and choosing professional development. The super-
visory domain relates to hiring and evaluating teachers, setting the budget, and
establishing policies for student behaviour. Results of hierarchical linear models
(HLMs) indicate that principals perceive that they have high influence in instruc-
tional and supervisory activities when the teachers in their schools actively
participate in decision-making. This finding suggests the benefits of mutuality in
school leadership. The research offers insight into principals’ perspectives that they
exert broader influence when they join with teachers in work that closely affects what
teachers do in classrooms, including with whom they work, what is expected of them,
and how they are supported in developing new skills.
The finding of mutuality in leadership is explored more explicitly in a number of
studies that adopt a relational perspective of leadership, i.e., that leadership exists in
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 08:25 27 February 2014

the interactions of leaders and followers (Rost 1991). In the school, the leadership
relationship
or equation
involves principals and teachers.

Leadership effects on teaching practice

The following studies look at the effects of principals and teacher leaders on various
kinds of instruction. Marks and Printy (2003) investigated the mutual relationship of
principals and teachers by specifying an integrated form of leadership that highlights
the transformational influence of principals as critical groundwork for authentically
sharing the work of instructional leadership with teachers. Transformational
leadership, measured through teacher survey responses, tapped the extent to which
principals challenged teachers intellectually, invited them to innovate, led change,
supported teachers, and shared power with them. Shared instructional leadership,
measured by researcher coding of case data, gauged principal and teacher influence
on curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Using an extensive rubric for class
observations and evaluating assessments, researchers targeted authentic pedagogy in
classrooms
looking for instruction and assessment that require students to engage
in a subject in a deep way, through extended discussions and written assignments,
and to make connections between classroom interactions and the real world.
The study found that instructional leadership shared by principal and teacher
did not develop unless the principal intentionally sought and fostered teachers’
engagement and innovation through transformational behaviours (Marks and Printy
2003). With data from a set of elementary, middle and high schools undergoing
restructuring efforts, hierarchical linear models indicated that where integrated
leadership (i.e., the principal was transformational and shared instructional leader-
ship with teachers) was normative, teachers presented evidence of authentic
pedagogy. Strong collaborative relationships oriented to improvement appear to be
a necessary requisite for quality teaching.
Research by Printy (2008) offers further insight into how principals and teachers
interact in ways that are consequential for quality instruction. As conceived for
this study and based on survey data from high school science and mathematics
teachers, both principals and department chairpersons provide formal leadership
that encourages teachers to collaborate in their communities of practice: as agenda
setters, leaders establish direction and ensure that goals and expectations are met; as
knowledge brokers leaders allow teachers to focus on their core responsibilities of
 114 S. Printy

teaching and learning, encourage innovation, scaffold teacher learning, and provide
adequate resources for their work; as learning motivators, school leaders develop
strong personal relationships with teachers, acknowledge their contributions, and
seek their input before making decisions. Both transformational and instructional
influences are evident in these leadership roles for principals.
In contrast to the Marks and Printy work, where integrated leadership
encompasses principal and teacher contributions, Printy measures teachers’ presence
in the leadership equation as teachers’ communities of practice. Using reports by
teachers indicating with whom they interact, how frequently, and around which
issues, the researcher assigned more value to participation and interaction outside of
the high school teachers’ subject departments, arguing that these engagements across
boundaries provide greater opportunity for teachers to learn new dispositions, skills,
and approaches. The instructional measure in this study gauges teachers’ use of
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 08:25 27 February 2014

standards-based pedagogy in science and mathematics, i.e., instructional practices

advocated by national disciplinary standards. Findings reveal that science teachers
reported greater use of these practices than did mathematics teachers; however, the
group of teachers who reported highest use were academic mathematics teachers and
the lowest use was reported by remedial teachers.
Although interactions among these high school teachers most commonly
occurred within their subject departments, teachers forged broad-based relationships
and engaged in activities of school-wide import under the influence of strong
principals and department chairs. It appears that teachers’ decisions to try or adopt
new instructional practices are influenced significantly by their opportunities to
learn, either through participation in various educational arenas or interaction with
a broad community, activities amenable to formal leader influence. Neither
departmental leaders nor principals, however, enhanced teachers’ use of standards-
based pedagogy. The hierarchical linear models for this work offer evidence that
principals are quite distant from instructional decisions and that department chairs
might even slow down adoption of non-routine teaching practice, at least in the
context of high school mathematics and science. It is possible that this distance is an
artifact of the research design, which did not have a clear measure of interactivity
among principals and teachers around instruction.
A national study of leadership and student performance provided an opportunity
for Wahlstrom and Seashore Louis (2008) to investigate influences of principal

teacher relationships on three different measures of classroom instructional practice.
The study measured principal
teacher leadership relationships in two ways: (a)
sharing decision-making; and (b) teachers’ trust in the principal. Teacher
teacher
peer relationships show up as professional community. Researchers conceived of
teachers’ classroom practice in three ways: standard contemporary practice (problem-
based, discovery-centred); focused instruction (focus on higher order thinking and
using specific activities to maintain student engagement); and flexible grouping
practice (organising the classroom to differentiate instruction by teacher purpose).
With data from teacher surveys, the study provides important insight into
teachers’ instructional decision-making. Regression analyses examined the influence
of teachers at all levels of schooling (e.g., elementary, middle, and high) for multiple
approaches to organising instruction. For standard contemporary practice, shared
decision-making is a factor, though professional community is a stronger predictor.
Results are consistent at all schooling levels. For focused instruction, teachers’ trust
 School Leadership and Management 115

in the principal is significant at the middle school level. Shared decision-making is

important at the elementary and high school levels. Professional community is a
strong predictor at all grade levels. For flexible grouping practice, both leadership
variables are significant until the professional community variable enters the
equation and makes a significant contribution, consistent for all levels. Elements
of professional community (e.g., reflective dialogue, collective responsibility,
deprivatised practice, and shared norms) also have differential effects on instruc-
tional practice across schooling levels.

Change in teaching practice

One study in this section takes change in instructional practice as the depen-
dent variable. Supovitz, Sirinides, and May (2010), using teacher survey data,
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 08:25 27 February 2014

incorporate three factors tapping principal leadership: (1) focusing organisational

mission and goals; (2) encouraging a culture of collaboration and trust; and
(3) supporting instructional improvement. Teacher peer influence also has three
factors: (1) instructional conversations; (2) interaction around teaching and
learning; and (3) advice networks.
The scale for teacher reported change in instruction measures the extent to which
teachers claim they adjusted their teaching methods, student assignments, and
questioning techniques, and have improved their understanding of students.
A multilevel structural model with latent variables investigated principal and peer
influences on change in teacher instruction as it relates to student learning. Results
demonstrate a positive association for both principal and peer influence with
teachers’ change in instructional practice in both English language arts (ELA) and
mathematics. The structural path from principal leadership to peer influence is
significant in both subjects; in fact, it is the largest and most significant relationship
in the model. Study findings affirm that principals who develop compelling missions
and goals, establish cultures of collaboration and trust and encourage instructional
improvement draw teachers together to engage in joint work to improve teaching and
learning. Such joint work productively entails rich conversation, collaborative
planning, and advice giving and receiving.

Test preparation
The final analysis that explicitly looks at the relationship of principal leadership to
instructional decisions comes from a mixed method study employing surveys of
fourth grade teachers. Researchers explored principals’ support for test preparation
strategies and the relationship between test prep and other instructional practices,
specifically inquiry-oriented instruction and direct instruction (Firestone et al. 2002).
Test preparation strategies, oriented at preparing students to pass the state’s
accountability examination, included things like practicing mechanics of testing
including pacing, turning story problems into calculations, and writing open-ended
math answers, in addition to giving practice using commercial test preparation
materials. As conceived for the study, inquiry-oriented instruction is constructivist or
authentic instruction; students have the opportunity to explore ideas in various
subject areas. Direct instruction is conventional teaching; teachers are active and
students practice more than explore. The measure for principal leadership aligns with
 116 S. Printy

transformational leadership: sets vision, motivates, offers learning opportunities and

personal support, and taps instructional leadership in a specific way through support
for standards and the state testing regimen. The study also controls for teachers’
perceived pressure to conform to demands of the state assessment policy.
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression results indicate that principal support
of standards is a consistent, significant predictor of test-preparation and is
significantly more important than feelings of pressure due to the state tests. Using
test preparation strategies encouraged modest changes toward inquiry-oriented
practice such as teaching concepts before computation, using manipulatives,
problem-solving, and writing about math. An important contextual fact is that
teachers generally perceived the state tests as relatively sound and not in conflict with
curricular intentions, as is often the case.
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 08:25 27 February 2014

Leadership configuration
The last study in this section explores the configuration and activation of leadership
roles in the context of elementary schools’ adoption of comprehensive school reform
(CSR) models (Camburn, Rowan, and Taylor 2003). The CSRs represented in the
study included: America’s Choice, Accelerated Schools Project, and Success For
All. The study sought to understand the extent to which CSRs prompt a greater
number of formally designated leadership positions, how various leadership
functions are distributed across roles, and whether the patterns of function and
dispersal align in ways that bring successful programmatic change and instructional
improvement.
Those who study CSRs recognise the ways in which these programs scaffold
leadership development by, for example, providing additional opportunities for
teachers to take on leadership and using a variety of strategies to communicate
expectations for collective work. The models also have different ways of arranging
joint work, building deep knowledge of curriculum and teaching, and generally
promoting improvement (Peurach 2010). Notably, CSR programs also place new
demands on existing leaders, particularly on principals. Often instrumental in
bringing the program to the school, principals need to monitor the focus on goals,
manage human and fiscal resources, and coordinate with the district office in a way
supportive of the CSR program.
Key findings of a set of HLM models indicate that leadership in these elementary
schools is provided by a relatively small team of individuals (three
seven people),
each of whom attends to a specialised leadership function (e.g., facilitator,
instructional coach, data analyst, family support specialist). In contrast, principals
take a generalist leadership position, performing a broader range of functions than
other leaders, and at higher levels. The interactions among principals and teacher
leaders create an apparent benefit to instructional quality through overlapping, or
redundant, leadership roles. CSRs also activate leadership through professional
development, thus, the extent of development was associated with high levels of
instructional leadership. These effects were strongest when programs prompted
teacher leaders to reflect on their developing practice. Effects for professional
development surpassed the importance of clearly defined role expectations, often
regarded as a key leadership mechanism.
 School Leadership and Management 117

Summary
The seven quantitative studies reviewed here offer convincing evidence that
principals are central figures in school efforts to improve instructional quality.
Even more important in making instructional choices are the leadership efforts of
teachers. When the energies of principals and teacher leaders coalesce on the same
targets through shared decision-making and in trusting environments, the promise
for instructional improvement is great.
Teachers are better able to undertake new or non-routine teaching practices (e.g.,
authentic instruction and standards-based instruction) when they have ample
opportunity to learn these new skills. Learning takes place in informal interaction,
through participation and conversation, just as it does in more formal professional
development settings. Principals play a key role in encouraging teacher involvement
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 08:25 27 February 2014

and learning through their transformational influence and by creating conditions

where peer influence can flourish. When instructional goals are very focused, such as
with paced instruction or test preparation, teachers’ decisions are quite amenable to
the direct influence of principals.

Conditions of support
The qualitative studies discussed in this section look more closely into the conditions
under which teacher leaders (e.g., coaches) contribute importantly to schools’
instructional programs. Such conditions often depend on choices made by district
leaders or school principals. These studies do not specify measures of instructional
practice in their analyses as did the studies reviewed earlier; rather they explore
overall levels of leadership defined as ‘instructional’. By virtue of sample selection,
some studies offer at least some evidence that raising the level of leadership will have
commensurate benefits in raising the effectiveness of instruction.
Mangin (2007), adopting a social-constructivist perspective, provides an ex-
ploratory study that highlights the importance of elementary principals in support-
ing the work of school-based mathematics instructional coaches. Emerging in the
context of greater instructional accountability, teacher leader roles (e.g., coach) are
intended to improve teaching practice. A school’s capacity to provide high quality,
embedded professional development may be facilitated by the creation of formal,
school-based teacher leadership roles that provide ongoing and context specific
instructional guidance. In her study, teachers already in the schools generally moved
into these positions.
While these added formal roles are intended to relieve principals of some
instructional leadership responsibility, Mangin notes, the fact that teacher leaders
often require the backing of their principal to work effectively may add, unin-
tentionally, another component to the principal’s work. The researcher identified
principals’ level of knowledge of the teacher leadership role as: (a) familiarity with the
role; (b) knowledge of role enactment; and (c) awareness of the teacher leader’s long-
and/or short-term goals. She measured principals’ level of interaction with the teacher
leader by: (a) frequency of interaction; and (b) quality of interaction.
Highly supportive principals, those with both high levels of knowledge and
interaction, revealed two primary methods for supporting instructional coaches.
First, they communicated an expectation of instructional improvement, while
 118 S. Printy

simultaneously acknowledging the teacher leader as a useful instructional resource.

Second, they communicated an expectation that teachers would interact with
the teacher leaders. An additional finding is that district communication about the
role can enhance both principals’ knowledge of and interaction with coaches.
Improved conditions for coaching, Mangin suggests, result from involving principals
in teacher leadership role design, soliciting input in the hiring process, creating
arenas for interaction with their supervisors, clarifying the principal’s role in
implementation, and offering professional development related to teacher leadership.
In schools where coaches were more successful, administrators took deliberate steps
to institutionalise structures and challenge normative assumptions by clearly
communicating expectations to teachers to tap the coaching resource as a path to
improvement.
Schools using CSR models are likely sites for learning how schools address
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 08:25 27 February 2014

instructional needs. Datnow and Castellano (2001) investigated leadership in six

Success for All (SFA) schools two years into their reform. As conceived by SFA, the
principal is the shaper of culture and the manager of reform, while teacher
facilitators are responsible for teacher learning and implementation of the instruc-
tional program; both facilitators and principals carry responsibility to interact with
the external SFA design teams. SFA takes an aggressive approach to changing
teaching and learning for elementary literacy. The highly specified program comes
with comprehensive implementation guidelines and all materials. Teachers follow
SFA lesson plans with active pacing of activities for 90 minutes.
The researchers found that strong principal support is critical to implementation
of the program, though they also found variation in the press for fidelity according
to a principal’s leadership style. In all schools, SFA provided opportunity for
principals to bring sharper focus to teaching and learning. The reform increased
principals’ activity in classrooms and their knowledge about reading instruction, and
more time spent with reading instruction increased the credibility of principals with
teachers. Yet, responses show that principals relied on facilitators to lead the reform.
In these schools, principals often buffered teachers from comments of SFA design/
implementation teams, particularly when they were critical. In general, ambiguity
about roles was problematic to both principals and teacher facilitators. Also, SFA
schools were often out of synch with the district, which caused difficulty particularly
around issues of human resources.
Sykes, Printy, and Bowers (2007) found a slightly different picture in a two-year
study of a small urban district where six elementary schools had been using SFA for
six years. The leadership dynamics orchestrated through the SFA program were
definitely present, with facilitators taking the lead instructionally. Principals’
curricular expertise varied somewhat across the schools, but all (even battle-scarred
veterans) called attention to the opportunity for their own learning afforded by the
reform in their six schools.
Most interesting to the researchers was how the schools in this district worked
with the SFA design team
in short, as equal partners for improving their
instructional program. Admittedly, the first years of implementation were challen-
ging for all school personnel, but after the initial learning curve, teachers began
making suggestions for changes and improvement targeted at helping their own
students achieve more. During the time of the study, several schools were piloting a
new SFA computer product. Researchers also observed a ‘learning orientation’ on
 School Leadership and Management 119

the part of facilitators and principals and efforts to share new insights across the six
district schools. In fact, district officials sought to expand a number of SFA routines
and structures to the middle school and, more modestly, to the high school. Toward
the point of instructional improvement, teachers with long tenures in the school
noted that they now had instructional repertoires that were successful with their
urban students and that had enabled them to nearly eliminate achievement gaps due
to race or economic conditions.
The final study in this section looked at the ways a medium sized urban district
used coaches to establish teachers’ inquiry communities across schools (Wood 2007).
A new transformational superintendent inspired the beleaguered district to improve;
her action plan included fostering distributed leadership by building strong learning
communities in every school. Her interest was in building capacity
which she
understood as embedding capacities in teachers’ regular work. She made uncom-
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 08:25 27 February 2014

promising demands of her faculty and staff, but she also made clear efforts to
institutionalise conditions that would enable the work. She wanted to see ‘common
intellectual standards of practice’ so that every school, every teacher, and every
student could improve.
The district’s professional development partner, the National School Reform
Faculty (NSRF), trained significant numbers of the district’s administrators and
faculty as internal coaches to facilitate communities in their district. The facilitation
training gave the educators the means to develop collaboration skills with others to
bring about new cultures where practitioner expertise could contribute to the
creation of new knowledge. A primary method of facilitation was using protocols,
which, generally defined, are prescribed procedures that support disciplined
professional conversations. Within a short period of time, the protocols took hold
and began appearing in meetings other than learning communities throughout the
district (e.g., school faculty meetings).
The results that Wood reported point to ways in which the formal organisation
collides with the social organisation in a school. Although the initiative sought to
establish learning communities to mobilise practitioner expertise and build collective
responsibility, most participants did not claim a connection between their
collaborative work and student learning. Within the groups, more time was devoted
to community-building efforts than to critical inquiry aimed at improving teaching
practice. Additionally, while the district made considerable headway institutionalis-
ing structural dimensions of the initiative, efforts to enhance teacher efficacy
appeared to be constrained by high-stakes accountability policies requiring
compliance. District leadership, though seeking a promising context for change,
unwittingly caused conditions that threatened to undermine the initiative.

Summary
Designated teacher leader roles appear to be a widely used component of programs
designed to improve the quality of instruction and are key components of CSR
models. While instructional coaches are intended to relieve principals of some
instructional responsibility, they may complicate the principal’s work.
Guidance for how to organise the work of instructional coaches maximises their
effectiveness. Principals who have a high level of knowledge about the role and
interact frequently with coaches support them by acknowledging them as experts
 120 S. Printy

and by communicating that teachers should use them as resources. CSR programs
such as SFA not only lend guidance for the coaching role and responsibility, they
often ensure that principals have opportunities to gain content knowledge and
increase their own leadership capacity (Stein and Nelson 2003).
District decisions can inspire principals and teachers toward improvement, can
institute structures and routines that sustain and spread promising practices, and can
just as easily undermine the reform.

Alignment of the formal organisation and the social organisation

The final set of studies in this review employ network analysis to look at the
interactions among principals, instructional coaches, and teachers in formal and
informal situations in schools reforming the curricular and instructional program.
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 08:25 27 February 2014

The first three studies employ egocentric, qualitative network analysis and the final
two utilise a quantitative social network approach. Network analysis helps to reveal
the degree to which the formal organisation and the social organisation of a school
align.
In a large study of reforming school districts, Stein and Coburn (2008) illuminate
the ways in which leaders design conditions that support teachers’ opportunities to
learn new ideas and practices required to carry out ambitious reforms. The research
focused on experiences in two contrasting districts, both in the midst of rolling out
new mathematics initiatives. In Greene District, connections across disparate
communities of practice (e.g., district mathematics leaders, district administrative
leaders, school level leaders) led to significant occasions for principal and teacher
learning and alignment with reform goals. In the Region Z district, connections
served to coordinate activities but did not result in meaningful learning for principals
or teachers.
The study required researchers to look into multiple overlapping communities of
practice. Based on careful analysis of interview data, Stein and Coburn identified
teachers’, instructional coaches’ and principals’ social networks and delineated the
boundaries of each network, the extensiveness of ties, and the congruence of
members’ conversations with district policy messages. They explored the formal
systems put in place at multiple levels to support reform and looked at the extent of
alignment of those systems with the informal interactions within the various
communities of practice. An important conclusion of the research is that the
structure and nature of cross-boundary interaction throughout a district have
important consequences for principals’ and teachers’ opportunities to learn new
knowledge and skills.
In the Region Z school, ideas about mathematics reform moved uni-directionally
from the district mathematics director, to the mathematics coach (who did not have
mathematics expertise), to the teacher. Conversations, which excluded the principal,
were often superficial and focused on compliance. In the Greene District school,
mathematics ideas moved bi-directionally, from the district mathematics director, to
the coach (an experienced math educator), to the teacher, as well as up to the district
from the classroom. The principal and other administrators joined as partners in
substantial, focused conversations about reform ideas. A key idea is that occasions
for principals to exert positive influence might or might not occur based on how the
district designs and enacts the reform.
 School Leadership and Management 121

The authors illuminate this point more clearly in a second article from the same
study (Coburn and Russell 2008) and show how district policies are mediated at the
school level by leadership decisions that influence the way that coaches are used. In
Region Z principals had little guidance about how to hire coaches, so principals
made choices based on convenience rather than on expertise. The Greene principals
followed specified criteria for hiring and drew coaches from the district’s existing
teacher leaders in mathematics. In Region Z, multiple initiatives were underway, with
literacy activities taking priority over mathematics efforts. Region Z principals had
few chances to learn about the mathematics coaching initiative from district
mathematics leaders; as a result, they sometimes assigned coaches to work with
students rather than teachers and often pulled coaches away from coaching duties to
take care of other pressing needs. In Greene District schools, reform focused on
mathematics, and principals had ample opportunity to understand the design of the
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 08:25 27 February 2014

initiative from attending professional development meetings with district leaders. As

a result, principals knew coaches’ schedules and could support their time with
teachers, sometimes by buffering them from district requests.
Coburn and Russell also traced the depth and congruence of interactions around
mathematical ideas related to the reform. Principals influenced the depth and
congruence of mathematics interactions in several ways. First, they decided on the
number of coaches hired relative to the number of teachers. With a low ratio, coaches
could work more intensely with teachers, and thus, engage in conversations that had
more depth. Second, principals often worked against the reform by passing on
messages to teachers that were incongruent with the ideas of the mathematics
curriculum (e.g., emphasising test preparation strategies).
Spillane (2005) examines variation in leadership practice across school subjects in
the same elementary schools by looking particularly at the institutional structure
(positions, routines, administrative attention, resources, and norms) and the
relational structure (social networks). Spillane’s findings continue themes identified
in the earlier sections, particularly the indirect influence administrators exert on
teachers’ instructional choices through structuring opportunities for interaction.
In the eight study schools, institutional structures for leadership included roles,
such as subject coordinators and lead teachers, and routines such as leadership team
meetings, grade level meetings, curricular committee meetings, school improvement
planning meetings, and so on. On paper, that is, formally, the distribution of
resources for different subjects (e.g., literacy, mathematics, science) appeared similar.
The ‘lived’ organisation, however, was much different; as enacted, the leadership
devoted to literacy was much greater relative to other subjects. A comparison of the
numbers of formal leaders and administrators involved in literacy routines showed
the priority given to that subject in all schools. The involvement of administrators

signalling more support
was starkly different by subject. For instance, in one
school, literacy was the focus of 54% of formal leadership routines while
mathematics was discussed in only 14% of routines. Responsibility for leadership
taken by regular classroom teachers also differed by subject, with many teachers
involved in major roles in literacy meetings, but no evidence of such in mathematics
meetings.
The schools’ informal cultures supported the variations described above. Both
formal and informal leaders saw literacy as more central to the curriculum since
skills in literacy would support learning in other subjects. Leaders also located
 122 S. Printy

the school as the location for primary expertise in literacy, when they turned outside
the school to locate expertise in mathematics. This last point was borne out by
analysis of advice networks. Teachers more often sought out colleagues for advice
about literacy than about mathematics instruction. Interaction patterns in the
literacy networks were denser and the conversations about literacy were richer, more
lively, characterised by dialogue, and ventured into specifics about classroom
teaching and student learning more than those around mathematics. Notably,
school administrators did not figure prominently in subject-specific advice networks.
Penuel and associates (Penuel et al. 2009, 2010) also offer fine-grained
investigations of reform at the school level but use quantitative social network
investigations augmented with interview data. The researchers argue that social
network analysis can help leaders make decisions that will enhance the alignment of
the formal organisation of the school with its informal structures: by describing
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 08:25 27 February 2014

faculty networks, by producing measures that explain changes in teachers’ attitudes

and behaviours, by demonstrating the extent to which efforts to promote collabora-
tion are successful, and by illuminating strategies for using formal and informal
reform leaders (coaches) to improve instruction.
One study sought to explain differences in outcomes for two elementary schools
implementing whole-school literacy reforms (Penuel et al. 2009). By all apparent
indicators, the schools did not differ significantly, had a similar focus for activities,
and had similar resources. Yet Crosswinds showed dramatic gains in students’
literacy performance measures while Glade scores remained stagnant. Network and
interview data pointed to significant differences resulting from principals’ beliefs and
practices in leading the reform.
At Crosswinds, the principal made key moves at the start of the reform to build
solidarity in the school, emphasising that ‘we’ know better than ‘them’ (the district)
how to address student needs. The principal believed in teachers’ abilities to enact
the reform by working collaboratively to modify the adopted curricular materials
based on demonstrated abilities of students. She emphasised shared leadership
responsibilities for meeting the targets of reform and encouraged collective
responsibility for improvement on grade level teams. This action encouraged trust
by reducing the vulnerability felt by individual teachers.
The Glade principal put faith in the curricular materials and outside experts who
came to the school to support the reform, not in her teachers. Additionally, teachers’
energies were divided by multiple improvement initiatives ongoing in the school, each
with a separate set of experts, paperwork, and external accountability to funders.
The principal expected teachers to use instructional templates to record instructional
decisions. While these were initially intended to be collaborative products, they
quickly devolved into individual compliance mechanisms that teachers had to
support with evidence of their students’ performance improvement. These reduced
social trust and increased teachers’ anxiety.
Principals at each school handled the coaching positions differently. At Cross-
winds, the principal chose an expert teacher to provide classroom assistance directly
to teachers. She modelled and encouraged an active culture of seeking out, selecting,
and adapting resources through discussions with colleagues. This literacy coach
monitored the progress of reform, oversaw data collection and enhanced the use of
data, and facilitated the transfer of successful practice from one classroom to the
next.
 School Leadership and Management 123

The Glade principal chose to support two low-experience teachers with the funds
designated for the literacy coach. They served as substitutes to allow teachers to
leave classrooms for collaboration. However, principals often called them to other
projects. Ultimately, teachers lost trust in the process since their plans to collaborate
were often interrupted and because they had no access within their school to teachers
with more expertise.
The other study followed two elementary schools undertaking whole school
reforms for shared decision-making based on data in core subjects (Penuel et al.
2010). This report places more emphasis on the quantitative findings of the
social analysis method to reveal the ways grade-level teams, coaches, and vertical
teams designed to promote collaboration across grades influenced actual patterns of
interaction relative to more informal influences, such as collegial bonds among
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 08:25 27 February 2014

faculty members and norms of trust and collective responsibility that had emerged
over time. Many of the findings repeat themes from the previous study.
At Dickerson, the formal structures to support teacher collaboration emerged
from informal patterns of interaction already extant in the school. The principal
shared responsibility for progress with the faculty. She chose formally designed
leaders
the ‘go to’ people
strategically from the existing faculty by identifying
teachers with high expertise and informal influence. The school’s normative culture
of caring and support provided a basis for a more defined collaborative culture. As a
result, the formal organisation aligned with the informal.
At La Plaza, the formal structures imposed as part of the reform were at odds
with the informal organisation. A charter school that began with a mission for
shared governance and extensive teacher leadership, La Plaza also embraced high
teacher autonomy. Declining test scores on accountability tests brought increased
pressure from the district and placed the principal in the spotlight of external
pressure. She reported feeling the tension between the need to be a ‘strong’ leader on
the one hand while acknowledging the tradition of teacher autonomy on the other.
The principal also reported that teachers were suspicious of her motives. Sociograms
identified polarisation of expertise in data use, which served to fragment the reform
effort.

Summary
Interactions among educators throughout a district can differentially influence
principals’ and teachers’ access to new knowledge and skills. How learning
opportunities at the school level take shape are further dependent on decisions
that principals make, often related to implementation of coaching initiatives. At the
school level, decisions about allocation of coaches, among other resources, often
have to do with subject. In elementary schools, where multiple initiatives are likely,
literacy is often prioritised.
Instructional improvement is more successful when the formal organisation of
reform activities is aligned with the social organisation of the school. Principals who
put formal structures in place to enhance teachers’ informal networks will strengthen
collegial bonds, enhance trust, and increase collective responsibility for learning, all
of which are likely pathways to improved collegial decisions about instruction.
 124 S. Printy

Conclusion
The research reviewed here adds to the body of work in support of shared or
distributed approaches to school leadership. Contemporary expectations for student
performance demand that teachers acquire knowledge and new skills. Teacher
learning is facilitated when transformational principals motivate teachers to extend
their selves in this way and when principals remain engaged with teachers as they
collaboratively make instructional decisions.
Formal teacher leaders are relatively new to the school landscape and bring new
challenges to the schoolhouse. These instructional coaches experience role ambiguity
just as principals do, while both parties negotiate their proper roles. The studies
reviewed point over and over to the lack of knowledge principals have about how
best to utilise the resources coaches offer. In some cases, district leaders took on
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 08:25 27 February 2014

the challenge of helping principals understand how to use coaches to enhance the
instructional capacities of the faculty; in many cases, district leaders did not
themselves know what it was that principals needed to know and left things to
chance. The cases reveal how important it is for principals to have deep content
knowledge so that they can influence instructional programs in positive ways,
including knowing how to support teachers’ learning (Stein and Nelson 2003).
CSR schools appear to have relatively high levels of guidance in these areas.
Through expectations for their principals, they create openings for principals to
emphasise teaching and learning, to spend time in classrooms and to engage in other
activities related to the instructional program, thereby increasing principals’
credibility. Even so, in CSR schools, facilitators appear to lead the way toward
instructional improvement.
Formal procedures and routines intended to support reform do not always
succeed. The network studies show the ways in which social norms predominate. To
change and sustain teachers’ practice requires constant and intentional effort by
teachers and support from principals. Many times, teachers retreat to superficial or
perfunctory performance of reform routines. That occurrence is a sign that the
formal and informal organisations are misaligned. Districts make important
decisions about reform at multiple levels, and when these align, the reform has a
better chance of success.
The studies reinforce the centrality of the principal and show the multiple
opportunities principals have to mediate district polices at the school level. What
principals say makes a difference to teachers. When the district doesn’t intentionally
address principal learning needs about the intents and processes of reform, principals
will sometimes pass on messages that divert teachers from doing what they should be
doing. With a better understanding of the reform, principals are more likely to
support it.
Network studies illuminate how different the social organisation can be from the
formal organisation put in place to structure changes to the instructional program.
Principals who understand the power of the social organisation can design formal
structures around teacher networks. One idea is to place natural leaders who already
have credibility due to their expertise in formal teacher leader positions. Capitalising
on existing collegial bonds can increase trust and collective responsibility for student
learning.
 School Leadership and Management 125

Implications for policy and practice

Professional learning is a complex, sometimes ambiguous, endeavour when the target
is improved teaching to promote student performance gains. Policy-makers need to
understand the pathways to improvement shown in the studies reviewed here.
Principals do have something to say about student learning, but it is primarily
through their efforts with faculties to collaboratively inquire into and make
adjustments to their instructional practice. Further, policy-makers need to under-
stand how critical it is that policy approaches recognise the power of the social
organisation to enhance or undermine reform progress. Network analysis employed
early on in reform can offer evidence that reform initiatives will likely take hold
because they align with the social organisation, or that they will not.
For practitioners, these studies offer particular guidance to principals about the
design of their organisations to balance the formal requirements of reform with the
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 08:25 27 February 2014

social supports offered through teachers’ collegial relations. The research demon-
strates the power of teacher community and reinforces that teacher isolation is
anathema to quality instruction. Principals should have a solid grounding in
organisational theory to benefit from this knowledge.
Most of the research findings come from elementary schools. Stark differences
are not apparent in the high school data contained here, but the paucity of research
in high schools calls for a better understanding of how principal and teacher learning
in the service of better teaching and enhanced student performance unfolds at that
level.

Notes on contributor
Susan Printy is an associate professor and unit coordinator in the Department of Educational
Administration at Michigan State University. She is a former high school teacher and earned
her PhD from the School of Educational Policy and Leadership at the Ohio State University.
Dr. Printy studies school improvement in large high schools and provides professional
development to Title I high schools as part of the Michigan State System of Support to
chronically under-performing schools.

References
Bass, B.M., and B. Avolio. 1993. Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In
Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions, ed. M.M. Chemers and
R. Ayman, 49
80. New York: Free Press.
Camburn, E., B. Rowan, and J. Taylor. 2003. Distributed leadership in schools: The case of
elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis 25, no. 4: 347
73.
Coburn, C.E., and J.L. Russell. 2008. District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis 30, no. 3: 203
35.
Cohen, D., S. Raudenbush, and D. Ball. 2003. Resources, instruction, and research.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 2, no. 5: 119
42.
Datnow, A., and M. Castellano. 2001. Managing and guiding school reform: Leadership in
Success For All schools. Educational Administration Quarterly 37, no. 2: 219
49.
Firestone, W., L. Monfils, G. Camilli, R. Schorr, J. Hicks, and D. Mayrowetz. 2002. The
ambiguity of test preparation: A multi-method analysis in one state. Teachers College
Record 104, no. 7: 1485
523.
Hallinger, P., and R. Heck. 1998. Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effective-
ness: 1980
1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 9, no. 2: 157
91.
 126 S. Printy

Leithwood, K., K. Seashore Louis, S. Andersen, and K. Wahlstrom. 2004. Review of research:
How leadership influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Lugg, C., K. Bulkley, W. Firestone, and C.W. Garner. 2002. The contextual terrain facing
educational leaders. In The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the
twenty-first century, ed. J. Murphy, 20
41. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mangin, M. 2007. Facilitating elementary principals’ support for instructional teacher
leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 43, no. 3: 319
57.
Marks, H.M., and J. Nance. 2007. Contexts of accountability under systemic reform:
Implications for principal influence on instruction and supervision. Educational Adminis-
tration Quarterly 43, no. 1: 3
37.
Marks, H.M., and S.M. Printy. 2003. Principal leadership and school performance:
Integrating transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly 39, no. 3: 370
97.
Penuel, W.R., M. Riel, A. Krause, and K. Frank. 2009. Analyzing teachers’ professional
interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers College
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 08:25 27 February 2014

Record 111, no. 1: 124
63.

Penuel, W.R., M. Riel, A. Joshi, L. Pearlman, C. Min Kim, and K. Frank. 2010. The
alignment of the informal and formal organizational supports for reform: Implications for
improving teaching in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly 46, no. 1: 57
95.
Peurach, D. 2010. Seeing complexity in public education: Problems, paradoxes, and Success For
All. New York: Oxford University Press.
Printy, S.M. 2008. Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice perspective.
Educational Administration Quarterly 44, no. 2: 187
226.
Robinson, V., C. Lloyd, and K. Rowe. 2008. The impact of leadership on student outcomes:
An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration
Quarterly 44, no. 5: 635
74.
Rost, J. 1991. Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.
Spillane, J.P. 2005. Primary school leadership practice: How the subject matters. School
Leadership and Management 25, no. 4: 383
97.
Stein, M.K., and C.E. Coburn. 2008. Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of
two urban school districts. American Journal of Education 114, no. 3: 583
626.
Stein, M.K., and B.S. Nelson. 2003. Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis 25, no. 4: 423
48.
Supovitz, J., P. Sirinides, and H. May. 2010. How principals and peers influence teaching and
learning. Educational Administration Quarterly 46, no. 1: 31
56.
Sykes, G., S. Printy, and A. Bowers. 2007. We are ‘Big Red’: Community pride, leadership, and
Success for All in a working class community. Case study for the Hewlett Foundation. East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Wahlstrom, K., and K. Seashore Louis. 2008. How teachers experience principal leadership:
The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational
Administration Quarterly 44, no. 4: 458
95.
Witziers, B., R.J. Bosker, and M.L. Kruger. 2003. Educational leadership and student
achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly
39, no. 3: 398
425.
Wood, D. 2007. Teachers’ learning communities: Catalyst for change or a new infrastructure
for the status quo? Teachers College Record 109, no. 3: 699
739.