International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice

This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville]
On: 24 December 2014, At: 00:15

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

Education: Theory and Practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedl20
Relationships between Paraguayan

principals’ characteristics, teachers’
perceptions of instructional leadership
and school outcomes
Allison M. Borden
Published online: 29 Oct 2010.
To cite this article: Allison M. Borden (2011) Relationships between Paraguayan principals’
characteristics, teachers’ perceptions of instructional leadership and school outcomes,
International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 14:2, 203-227
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2010.482675
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
INT. J. LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION,
APRIL–JUNE 2011, VOL. 14, NO. 2, 203–227
Relationships between Paraguayan principals’

characteristics, teachers’ perceptions of
instructional leadership and school outcomes
ALLISON M. BORDEN
0aborden@unm.edu
Dr.
000002010
AllisonBorden
International
10.1080/13603124.2010.482675
TEDL_A_482675.sgm
1360-3124
Original
Taylor
2010
00 &
and
Article
Francis
(print)/1464-5092
Francis
Journal of Leadership
(online)
in Education
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 00:15 24 December 2014
The purpose of this research was to test an indirect-effects model of the relation between the
Paraguayan principals’ characteristics and their instructional leadership activities (as
perceived by teachers) and school outcomes. Complete data were obtained from 256 of 300
schools in a random sample. Data were collected at the school level through self-adminis-
tered questionnaires. The Paraguayan Ministry of Education’s Department of Planning,
Information and Statistics provided data on enrolment, repetition and dropouts. Structural
equation modelling was used to test the hypothesized relations. The study finds that when
comparing two similar schools: (1) better prepared, more experienced principals are viewed
more favourably by teachers; (2) student achievement is higher at schools where principals
are available to take part in efforts to improve instruction, than at schools where principals
are not available, due to teaching responsibilities; and (3) higher levels of student achieve-
ment at schools where principals are available to improve instruction are associated with
lower student grade repetition rates. The findings’ implications are considered in relation to
policies to relieve principals of some or all of their teaching responsibilities and to prepare
them for and support them in instructional leadership roles.
The challenges to education systems across Latin America are significant and
have been well-documented (Navarro et al. 1999, Moura 2000, Reimers
2000, Carnoy 2002, OREALC/UNESCO 2004, UNESCO and ECLAC
2005, Schiefelbein and McGinn 2008). The number of primary school
students repeating grades remains high. Access to secondary education is still
limited or non-existent for many underserved groups. Generally, teachers are
poorly prepared, lack content-area knowledge and are underpaid. Principals
rarely have formal training beyond that of teachers. Student achievement, as
measured by national and international standards, is low. The school day and
the academic year may be shorter than those of more industrialized nations.
Young adults enter the workforce with fewer years of education than their
peers in other regions.
Education reforms designed to meet these challenges are as diverse as
the countries that are implementing them, yet they all have one important
element in common. To varying degrees, they are intended to decentralize
Allison M. Borden is an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership in the Department of Educational

Leadership and Organizational Learning, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1231,
USA. Email: aborden@unm.edu. During the 25 years prior to her work in higher education, she served
as a K-12 teacher and principal in the USA and Honduras. She has consulted on education reform
projects and conducted research on principal preparation and professional development in Honduras, El
Salvador, Guatemala and Paraguay.
International Journal of Leadership in Education

ISSN 1360–3124 print/ISSN 1464–5092 online © 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2010.482675
204 A. M. BORDEN
the administration of education systems, with the implication being that

individual schools will act autonomously within a support structure provided
by the ministry of education.
There is increased recognition across Latin America of the centrality of
the principal’s leadership role in school improvement (Sallán 1998a, Alvariño
et al. 2000, Peña 2000, 2005, Schettini and Pozner 2001, Uribe 2005). Since
the 1990s, investigators in Latin America, guided in part by the school effec-
tiveness and improvement research from European countries and the USA,
have begun to turn their attention to the work and impact of school principals.
My purpose in undertaking this research on public primary school prin-
cipals in Paraguay was to test an indirect-effects model of the relation
between the principals’ characteristics and their instructional leadership

activities (as perceived by teachers) and school outcomes. I define school
outcomes as instrumental activities (measured by teacher-generated grades
for fifth- and sixth-grade mathematics) and school efficiency (measured by
fourth-, fifth- and sixth-grade repetition rates).
With this study, I hope to make a contribution to the scholarly examina-
tion of school leadership and educational reform in Latin America. Two
research questions guided this investigation: Is there a relation between
principals’ characteristics and their instructional leadership activities as
perceived by teachers? Is there a relation between the principals’ instruc-
tional leadership activities as perceived by teachers and school outcomes?
A brief description of the education reform context for

this study
The year 1990 marked a turning point for the people of Paraguay, as the
country shifted from a nearly 40-year dictatorship towards democracy. The
transition forced the country to face two fundamental challenges: the consol-
idation of the newly created democratic institutions and the need to become
economically competitive (Reimers 1993). The dictatorship years had left
Paraguay unprepared to meet its new-found democratic, economic and
educational goals. In the early 1990s, compared to the other South Ameri-
can nations, Paraguay spent the smallest portion of its gross domestic prod-
uct on education (Reimers 1993: 148). Of the children who began first grade
in 1993, only 55% completed sixth grade six years later. In 1998, only 46%
of the school-aged population between 13 and 18 was enrolled in school. At
the close of the 1990s, nearly one quarter (24%) of primary teachers was still
unlicensed to teach (Dirección de Planificación 1999).
Paraguay, like many other countries in Latin America, is focusing its
education reform efforts on change at the school level, a focus that demands
a much clearer understanding of the principal’s role. It seems logical that this
type of reform, which is usually intended to increase student achievement,
cannot be implemented without the principal’s involvement (Chapman and
Burchfield 1993). And, while education reform in many countries often
includes decentralization of decision-making to the principal and the
community, such reforms are more likely to succeed if we better understand
what principals do (Chapman and Burchfield 1993).
PARAGUAYAN RELATIONSHIPS 205
Prior to the early 1990s, primary school principals in Paraguay func-

tioned as mid-level managers in a powerful, centralized education system, a
system where they acted strictly as ‘transmitters of orders and rules’
(Ministerio de Educación y Culto 1998: 278). There was no expectation
that they would take on an instructional leadership role, as currently under-
stood in the UK, Australia, the USA and elsewhere.
In 1992, the first Education Reform Act for primary education was
passed, and the corresponding act for secondary education was approved in
1993 (Ministerio de Educación y Culto 1996: 9). A vision of a new educa-
tion system in Paraguay emerged, one where schools would guarantee that
learners would ‘learn how to learn’ and acquire the ‘technical knowledge
for an information culture’ (Ministerio de Educación y Culto 1996: 65).

Principals would have a new role as change agents at school and community
levels and bring education reform to the classroom level (Borden 1996).
They would be expected to lead a school-community team focused on
improving teaching, student learning and the quality of community
participation in education (Novara 1997, Ministerio de Educación y Culto
1998).
The vision of primary schools laid out in reform documents written
more than a decade ago is not yet the reality in which public primary
school principals in Paraguay function. Much less time is available for
Paraguay’s principals to do their jobs than in schools in other countries in
the region. Nearly all public, primary schools continue to offer two daily
shifts of four hours each during a school year that often falls short of the
required 192 days.1 Teachers spend the morning session with one or more
grade levels of students and then teach an entirely different group in the
afternoon. When the morning shift ends, teachers and the principal, more
often than not, go home for lunch. In the data I analysed, 62% of the prin-
cipals and 71% of the teachers live in the community where the school is
located, making this not only possible, but for most, the only option, since
many schools do not have any place for students and staff to eat. The
school day in Paraguay is very short. Cutting into the limited amount of
time for collaboration between and among teachers and principals is the
question of transportation. The morning shift begins at 7 am and ends at
11 am. The afternoon shift begins at 1 pm and ends at 5 pm. In rural areas,
in particular, but in cities and towns as well, teachers and principals may
have to walk to school, hitch a ride on a passing bus or truck or rely on
public transportation.
Framework and constructs of the study
The hypothesized, composite model that I developed and tested is presented

in Figure 1.2 It is based on previous research on the principal’s impact in
schools (Hallinger et al. 1990, 1996, Hallinger and Heck 1996, Bista and
Glasman 1998, Uline et al. 1998), studies from Latin America (Adminis-
tración Nacional de Educación Pública 1999, Casassus et al. 2000, Espínola
2000, Hernández et al. 2000, Loera Varela 2001) and the findings from an
unpublished pilot study I completed in Paraguay (Borden 1999).
206 A. M. BORDEN
Figure 1. Hypothesized relationships among antecedent constructs, principal’s

activities ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ the classroom constructs and school outcome
constructs
Antecedent constructs
Figure 1. Hypothesized relationships among antecedent constructs, principal’s activities ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ in the classroom constructs, and school outcome constructs
I hypothesize that there are four antecedent, latent constructs that may
have an influence on a Paraguayan primary school principal’s instructional
leadership activities (i.e. roles ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ the classroom) and/or
the school’s instrumental activities: school socio-economic status (SES), the
principal’s teaching responsibilities, principal quality and the principal’s
gender.
It seems reasonable to examine personal factors (formal education,
teaching and administrative experience and gender) and organizational
factors (school type, size, location, SES, parental involvement) as potential
influences on the principal’s leadership. In a study of Bolman and Deal’s
four approaches to leadership, Bista and Glasman (1998: 130) found a
number of variables that influence the principal’s leadership approach. The
principal’s previous teaching experience, site experience as a principal,
school size, school SES and school location all have an impact on the
principal’s approach to leadership; suggesting that ‘different organizational
variables affect the behaviour of the principal differently’. Hernández et al.
(2000) found a positive effect between the length of time the principal has
held the position and the strength of the principal’s leadership.
Hallinger et al. (1996: 541) found a positive effect of parental involve-

ment, suggesting that principals perceived to be strong instructional leaders
work in schools where parents are more involved in the school and their chil-
dren’s education. They found a positive effect of school SES on principal
leadership, suggesting that principals modify their leadership according to
the community context of the school (Hallinger et al. 1996: 542). They also
found that the principal’s gender has an effect, where female principals are
perceived by teachers to be more active in curriculum and instruction than
are male principals.
I include the ‘Principal Teaches’ construct to take into consideration
the fact that, nationwide, some 60% of public primary school principals in
Paraguay have teaching responsibilities during the same instructional peri-

ods as the teachers they are expected to supervise, thus limiting their avail-
ability for instructional leadership during the school day. The inclusion of
this construct is also supported by the work of Hernández et al. (2000), who
found that principals with teaching responsibilities, predominantly in rural
schools, were found to exhibit weak leadership with teachers, although
somewhat stronger leadership with parents.
Principal’s instructional leadership activities
In most public schools in the USA, for example, the principal does not teach.
Rather, the principal interacts with teachers, coordinates their activities and
influences the conditions in which students learn and teachers teach. As a
result, many researchers now agree that the principal has an indirect, but
important, impact on school climate and student and school outcomes
(Hallinger et al. 1990, Teddlie and Stringfield 1993, Hallinger and Heck
1996, Uline et al. 1998, Cotton 2003, Waters et al. 2003, Witzier et al. 2003,
Barnett and McCormick 2004, Somech 2005).
The contexts in which principals function differ from country to country;
for example, the presence (or absence) of required qualifications and selec-
tion processes for the job, the degree to which the educational system is
decentralized and how their work is evaluated (or not). Nevertheless, the
principal holds a formal position in a collective endeavour and, as such,
accepts myriad stated and unstated responsibilities, together with the oppor-
tunity to exert obvious and not so obvious influence on others. Consequently,
the principal is generally recognized as a key actor in school success (Harber
and Dadey 1993, Hallinger and Leithwood 1994, Peterson and Deal 1998,
Sallán 1998a, Morriss et al. 1999, Smylie and Hart 1999, Cotton 2003,
Leithwood et al. 2004, Uribe 2005).
Research has found that principals influence student achievement
through mediating variables such as school mission, teacher expectations
and behaviours, school culture and instructional organization (Leitner 1994,
Hallinger and Heck 1996, Morriss et al. 1999, Leithwood and Levin 2005).
Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) determined that leadership at the building
level, including both the principals’ leadership and the teachers’ leadership,
seems most likely to influence four school conditions: purposes and goals;
school structure and social networks; people; and, organizational culture.
208 A. M. BORDEN
In all this research on the principal’s impact, the greatest challenge to

researchers continues to be how to define and measure leadership. There
is no commonly agreed-upon definition of leadership, especially as it is
exercised in schools. In the USA, for example, according to Beck and
Murphy (1993: 190–195), principals have travelled a metaphorical path
from the ‘Scientific Manager of the 1930s’, through the ‘Democratic Leader
of the 1940s’, to the ‘Instructional Leader of the 1980s’, to the 1990s and
beyond, where they may simultaneously be expected to be ‘a leader, a
servant, an organizational and social architect, an educator, a moral agent
and a person in the community’.
In this study, I was guided by a definition of leadership found in Bolman
et al. (1990: 21), where school leadership is understood as ‘a process of

mobilizing people and resources to confront and resolve difficult problems,
and to move schools towards the fulfilment of their instruction, social,
and civic goals’. I chose this definition because it most closely describes
what principals are expected to do under Education Reform in Paraguay
(Ministerio de Educación y Culto 1998). I use the phrase ‘instructional lead-
ership activities’ to refer to the principal’s actions that can be observed by
teachers and/or have an impact on teachers’ work.
Previous research has viewed ‘principal’s leadership’ and ‘intervening
variables’ as separate from each other (Hallinger and Heck 1996). In my
hypothesized model, a pair of constructs represents this relationship:
‘outside’ the classroom (principal’s role in school culture and climate) and
‘inside’ the classroom (principal’s role in the teaching and learning process).
I limit ‘inside the classroom’ to those instructional leadership activities
that either take place in the classroom or are related to what teachers do in
classrooms, such as whether or not the principal uses clear criteria to evalu-
ate teacher performance, is knowledgeable about pedagogy, visits class-
rooms to observe the learning and teaching process and uses test results to
make programme change recommendations. The term ‘outside the class-
room’ encompasses the principal’s activities that help create and sustain a
climate supportive of the learning and teaching process and school effi-
ciency, such as having a long-term vision for the school, considering all
students capable of learning, fostering an orderly and disciplined environ-
ment and working with key stakeholders in the school community.
At first glance, it may appear that I am suggesting a direct relation
between what the principal does and the school outcomes constructs;
however, this is not really the case. Let us consider how the ‘outside’ and
‘inside’ constructs work. The principal’s activities ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the
classroom are perceived and experienced primarily by teachers and students.
The principal’s impact on school outcomes is mediated through the actions
of others ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ the classroom. The principal takes action to
create, sustain and/or change the school climate in which teachers and
students function, both ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ the classroom. Representing
the principal’s impact in this way allows us to take this mediating effect into
account and at the same time simplify the model.
This notion of ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ also permits us to consider two
dimensions of the principal—teacher relationship as described by Jamentz
(1998): the principal as building manager and the principal as instructional
leader. In the first, the principal and teachers function under the assump-
tions of the professional teacher model, where the teacher is the expert inside
the classroom and the principal is the manager outside the classroom. In the
second, the principal is the ‘principal teacher’ and assumes an active role
‘inside’ the classroom in schools where teachers and principals learn and
work together to improve the learning and teaching process (Barth 1980,
2001, Jamentz 1998, Elmore 2000). Jamentz (1998: 8) clarifies it thus:
‘principals who define themselves as instructional leaders do not abandon
management or disciplinary responsibilities, but consider how their actions
in those areas can best contribute to student learning.’
School outcomes constructs
In contrast to most developed-country research of this type, where there is

usually one outcome, student achievement, I am hypothesizing two school
outcomes: instrumental activities and school efficiency. The selection of
instrumental activities was influenced by the work of Uline et al. (1998:
466), where instrumental activities are typically considered as ‘academic
achievement, resource acquisition and the teaching/learning function’.
I focus on the ‘academic achievement’ component of instrumental activities
as measured by students’ mathematics grades in Grades 5 and 6. I selected
school efficiency (understood here as primary school completion and
repetition rates) based on the relevance of Schiefelbein and Wolff’s work
(1993) for a Paraguayan context that is characterized by high repetition rates
and high dropout rates (Dirección de Planificación 1999, Dirección General
de Información, Monitoreo, Planificación y Calidad Educativa 2007).
Method
I focused on primary schools that are categorized by the Paraguayan

Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC) as ‘oficial’ (public), ‘completa’
(complete, Grades 1–6), ‘urbana’ (urban), ‘rural’ (rural), ‘centro educativo’
(CE—lead school for the cluster) and ‘escuela asociada’ (ea—individual
school in the cluster). I did this because (1) primary schools are located
throughout the country, whereas secondary schools are not; (2) a ‘complete’
school (one that has all six grades) may be different from one which is
‘incomplete’; (3) principals at CE schools are responsible for their own
buildings as well as serving as cluster leaders; (4) ‘complete’ urban schools
may be different from ‘complete’ rural schools; and, finally, (5) few studies
on principals, at any level, have been done in countries identified as ‘devel-
oping’ (Georgiades and Jones 1989, McGinn and Borden 1995).
Sample
I drew a stratified random sample from all public primary schools in

Paraguay that have grades one through six. Based on the results of a pilot
210 A. M. BORDEN
study that yielded sufficient data for analysis from 75% of the schools,
I selected a national sample of 300 schools (Borden 1999). With this sample
size and a response rate similar to that of the pilot study, I would have data
from 225 schools, thereby yielding sufficient cases for LISREL analysis
(Bentler and Chou 1987, Tanaka 1987). I used proportional allocation to
ensure that the strata reflected the target population and to avoid using
sampling weights (Light et al. 1990: 61–62).
In August of 2000, all 300 schools received a data collection packet that
consisted of Spanish language, self-administered questionnaires to be
completed by the principal, all the teachers at the school and the president of
the parents association (Asociación de Cooperación Escolar, ACE).
Principals, teachers and parents were asked to provide factual data, but only
teachers, who also completed the School Principals’ Leadership Activities
Questionnaire (CALDES in Spanish), provided subjective data (Fowler
1995).
Across the 300 schools, I received 1317 of 1644 teachers’ questionnaires
(80%), 265 of 300 principals’ questionnaires (88%) and 265 of the ACE
questionnaires (88%). I received data from 277 of the 300 (92%) schools in
the sample; however, I did not receive complete data from these 277 schools.
In some cases, a number of teacher questionnaires were not returned. In
other cases, questionnaires for the principal, the ACE president or both were
not returned. As a consequence, 12 of the 277 schools (4%) were eliminated
from the analysis because they did not have complete data from one or more
of the categories of participants.
Although complete data were available from principals, teachers and
presidents of ACEs for 265 schools, nine schools were not included in the
final sample tested because the teachers’ questionnaires were missing more
than 90% of the responses on the CALDES. This is the same standard I
used to eliminate teachers’ questionnaires from analysis for the pilot study.
Data on the analytic sample of schools are presented in Table 1.
The ‘quality’ of the principal varies from school to school. On average,
principals are licensed to be teachers (2.88 on a scale from one to six, where
one is a high school diploma, two is a licensed primary school teacher at the
basic skills level and six is a master’s degree). Principals range from having
completed only a high school education (one on the scale) to holding a
master’s degree (six). At the same time, 180 of the 256 principals do not
have any training in school administration.
Table 1. Stratified random sample of 300 ‘complete’ public primary schools in

Paraguay using proportional allocation with the category, number and percentage
of the total sample of 300 schools in the analytic sample of 256 schools
Paraguayan Ministry of Number in Proportional Number with Number and percentage

Education school category population allocation complete data of total sample
‘Centro educativo’-urban 421 27 23 23/27 = 85%

‘Centro educativo’-rural 589 38 38 38/38 = 100%
‘Escuela asociada’-urban 375 24 24 24/24 = 100%
‘Escuela asociada’-rural 3146 211 171 171/211 = 81%
Total 4531 300 256 256/300 = 85%
The average principal has nearly seven years of teaching experience and
just slightly more than that in administrative experience. There is a fair
amount of variation in teaching experience (std = 5.68), from principals with
no teaching experience at all to those who are very experienced, with 24
years of service. Similar variation can be seen in the principal’s experience as
school administrators (mean = 7.37 years).
There are more female than male principals in this sample of 256 prin-
cipals (55% vs. 45%), and principals are more likely to have teaching
responsibilities than not (56% vs. 44%). Of the 144 principals who have
teaching duties, 53 (37%) teach one grade level, 62 (43%) teach two grade
levels, 23 (16%) teach three grade levels and the remaining six principals
teach four to six grade levels (4%). Principals, who teach more than one
grade level may either have one grade in each shift or they may be teaching
in multi-grade classrooms in either the morning or afternoon shift or both.
Nearly three quarters of the teachers in this study are female (814 of the
1163 teachers who reported their gender) and some 65% of the teachers,
regardless of gender, live in the community in which they teach (777 of the
1199 who reported this information). Teachers are three times more likely
to teach both shifts rather than just one shift (883 of the 1171 who reported
this information). Approximately 16% of the teachers are between the ages
of 19 and 24, 40% are between the ages of 25 and 30 and another 32% are
between the ages of 31 and 39, making 88% of the teachers between the ages
of 19 and 39. Categories rather than actual age were used to provide
anonymity for teachers in smaller schools; 1164 teachers reported their age.
The quality of teachers, as was the case with principals, varies from
school to school. On average, teachers at any given school are licensed to do
their jobs (2.34 on a scale from one to six, where one is a high school
diploma, two is a licensed primary school teacher at the basic skills level and
six a master’s degree). I assigned each teacher a combination of points for
in-service training based on their responses and then each teacher’s points
were averaged together to obtain the school average. I developed the points
system with the assistance of Paraguayan colleagues in the Ministerio de
Educación y Culto, who are familiar with the in-service training offered: one
point for completing basic primary school teacher training; two points for
each in-service workshop or course and four points each for obtaining a
certificate as an education specialist, a master’s degree and/or training as a
school administrator. Based on this points system, on average, teachers at
these schools receive relatively little in-service training (mean = 4.15).
However, given the standard deviation of 2.34 and the maximum value of
13.0, I concluded that there is a fair amount of variation in the amount of
in-service training received by teachers at the schools in this sample.
Based on the responses on the ACE questionnaire, I determined that
parent associations in Paraguayan public primary schools have an average of
15 board members, including a president, a vice-president, a recording
secretary, a corresponding secretary, a treasurer and numerous members-at-
large. The president of the association at each school reported the estimated
attendance at general assemblies. On average, approximately 50% of the
families are represented at these assemblies, but there is a fair amount of
variation in attendance.
212 A. M. BORDEN
Measures
The observed variables I created for each of the underlying constructs shown
in Figure 1 came from three sources: (1) the questionnaires completed by
the principals that asked for the principal’s demographic and background
information as well as detailed information about the school, (2) the ques-
tionnaires completed by the teachers that asked for their demographic and
background information as well as their perceptions of the principals’
instructional leadership activities (the CALDES), and (3) statistics provided
by the Paraguayan Ministry of Education.
Principals’ leadership activities instrument
The greatest challenge to doing research on the principal’s impact is the lack
of agreement on what to measure and how to measure it. One useful
approach for addressing the difficulty of defining and measuring instruc-
tional leadership is to ask teachers about their perceptions of principals’
activities which directly affect the teaching and learning process (Watson
1985, Valentine and Bowman 1988, Bamburg 1990, Heck et al. 1990, Silins
1994, Leithwood and Jantzi 1999). This should not be surprising, since
teachers experience firsthand the impact of the principal’s behaviours and
‘work more closely with principals than any other professional group’
(Valentine and Bowman 1988: 6).
I developed the ‘Cuestionairo sobre las Actividades de Liderazgo de
Directores/as de Escuelas’ (CALDES) because I was unsuccessful in
locating any questionnaires used in countries considered ‘developing’ to
survey teachers about principals’ activities (Borden 1999). The CALDES
is a self-administered, Spanish-language instrument with 86 items asking
about teachers’ perceptions of primary school principals’ activities and
includes a section to collect demographic and other information about the
teachers. The items ask teachers if principals exhibit behaviours found to
be associated with school effectiveness and positive school outcomes. Such
behaviours include helping teachers improve their performance, recogniz-
ing a job well done, sharing expectations with teachers and enforcing
school rules (Ballou and Podgursky 1995: 245). The principal’s educa-
tional leadership activities, such as frequent evaluation and supervision of
teachers, establishing and enforcing clear educational policies and
encouragement of formal/informal discussion of instruction, have also
been shown to have positive effects on school outcomes (Heck et al. 1990,
Creemers and Scheerens 1994, Hallinger and Heck 1996, Hallinger et al.
1996). Goldring and Pasternack (1994: 250–251) found that effective
schools or less effective schools could be differentiated by whether or not
principals determine the school’s vision and develop clear goals for
organizational activities.
Using the concepts of ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ the classroom, I selected
subsets of items from the CALDES to create three observed variables for
two of the constructs in Figure 1: ‘outside the classroom’ (EXPECT and
SUPPORT) and ‘inside the classroom’ (TCHLN). A brief description of
each variable should make the distinction between ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ the
classroom clearer.
The EXPECT variable is a sub-score from 13 items that include whether
or not the principal (1) demonstrates a commitment to academic objectives,
(2) considers all students capable of learning, (3) has high expectations of
teachers, (4) has a long-term vision for the school, and (5) maintains high
standards of student behaviour.
The SUPPORT variable is a sub-score from 18 items such as whether or
not the principal (1) consults with others, (2) makes teachers proud to be a
part of the school, (3) recognizes the school’s problems, (4) creates an
orderly and disciplined environment, and (5) enjoys working with students.
Finally, the TCHLN variable is a sub-score based on 17 items that ask,

among other things, whether or not the principal (1) uses clear criteria to
evaluate teacher performance, (2) is knowledgeable about pedagogy, (3)
visits classrooms to observe the learning and teaching process, and (4) uses
exam results to make programme change recommendations.
The instrument as a whole has very high internal consistency: the esti-
mate of Cronbach’s alpha reliability for the 86 items is 0.97 (Litwin 1995).
Estimates of Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient were obtained from a
split sample analysis and were remarkably similar: 0.977791 and 0.977847.
Each of the three sub-scores is also a reliable measure. The estimates of
Cronbach’s alpha reliability for EXPECT, SUPPORT and TCHLN are
0.86, 0.92 and 0.91, respectively.
I would like to be able to distinguish one principal from another in terms
of instructional leadership activities. If principals differ in their sub-scores on
EXPECT, SUPPORT and TCHLN, then I would be able to say that they
are distinguishable from each other in terms of their leadership activities.
Based on one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) on two groups of teachers’
questionnaires, exploratory (N = 589) and confirmatory (N = 614), I deter-
mined that there are statistically significant differences between the princi-
pals’ sub-scores on EXPECT, SUPPORT and TCHLN across schools
(Jaeger 1993). These results tell me that the sub-scores do indeed depend
on the principal, who is being assessed by the teachers completing the instru-
ment. In other words, principals differ from school to school in their instruc-
tional leadership activities.
While it is true that these results may be attributed to the relatively large
number of items and/or the selection process of the items and their relation-
ship to the latent variable (i.e. principals’ instructional leadership), there is
another plausible explanation for this result. Watson (1985: 11) found
something very similar, pointing out that ‘this may say as much about
teacher perceptions of their principals as it does about reliability of the
instrument … all in all, these results portray a certain degree of “halo effect”
in the ratings’.
The ‘halo effect’ does not appear to be problematic in this case. An
examination of the teachers’ responses to the items on the questionnaire
reveals that, although they are not normally distributed, there is substan-
tial variation across items and within individual teachers. Nevertheless,
Paraguayan teachers do not appear to discriminate as well as we might
like among the many behaviours of their principals. In a culture where
214 A. M. BORDEN
teachers are unaccustomed to having an opinion of the principal’s perfor-

mance and do not have experience in assessing it, they may find it difficult
to distinguish among the facets of the principal’s role.
Observed variables to measure school SES, principal quality,

instrumental activities and school efficiency
The school, the primary context in which principals act, has been found to
have an impact on how they act (Hallinger et al. 1996). Public schools in
Paraguay vary in the quality of their physical plant, the quantity and quality
of resources such as books and audio-visual materials and the availability of

basic needs such as electricity and water. Schools in rural or marginal urban
areas tend to be the ‘poorest’ schools.
I measured the school’s SES using three variables, equipment (EQUIP),
school infrastructure (SCHINFRA) and library (LIB). Each is a composite
variable created from the principal’s responses to questions about the school
building’s infrastructure, office and audio-visual equipment and the school
library.
Unlike their counterparts in the USA, for example, principals in
Paraguay and in other countries in Latin America frequently have teaching
assignments (Dirección de Planificación 1999, Hernández et al. 2000). The
‘principal teaches’ construct captures an organizational factor that has impli-
cations for the principal’s ability to serve as an instructional leader. One way
in which instructional leaders have a positive impact on student achievement
is to spend time observing the teaching and learning process in classrooms
and conferring with teachers. Principals who are teachers will not be avail-
able to make such visits. There is only one observed measure for this
construct, a dichotomous variable (PRINTCH) where 1 equals a principal
who teaches and 0 equals a principal who does not. Principals reported this
information on their questionnaires.
There is almost no research from countries like Paraguay as to what
makes a principal qualified. Fuller and Clarke (1994), for example, refer to
just four studies where the principal’s training level was found to have statis-
tically significant, positive effects on achievement. Effective schools research
tends to focus on the characteristics of effective principals (Murphy 1994),
at the same time emphasizing that ‘leadership is not simply about the quality
of individual leaders’ but also that ‘different styles of leadership can be asso-
ciated with effective schools’ (Sammons 1999: 196).
Bista and Glasman (1998) found that the principal’s leadership perspec-
tives could be influenced by personal variables (prior teaching experience,
gender and administrative experience) and organizational variables (school
size, community where the school is located and the school’s SES). I took
the organizational variables into consideration in the school’s socio-
economic construct. Therefore, I decided to measure principal quality using
three observed variables: the principal’s education level (PEDUCLV); the
number of years of teaching experience the principal has (PYRSTCH) and
the number of years the principal has served in this role at any school
(YRSPRIN). The information is taken from the principals’ questionnaires.
In the USA, when teachers rate the performance of principals, the prin-
cipal’s gender may or may not have an effect on how the principal is rated.
Ballou and Podursky (1995: 249–250) found that ‘male principals generally
receive lower evaluations than female principals’ and that ‘female teachers
consider male principals as significantly less helpful than female principals’.
In contrast, in a study to ‘determine the relationship between teacher
perceptions of the principal as an instructional leader’ and a number of
school characteristics, including student achievement, Andrews (1989: 217)
found that gender was not a statistically significant predictor of the teachers’
perceptions of the principal.
Some 70% of the teachers and 55% of the principals who completed the
questionnaires for this study are female. Because I am not aware of any
research on the influence of principal’s gender in Latin American countries,
I included this construct in the model. It has only one observed measure, a
dichotomous variable (PSEX), where 1 the principal is female and 0 the prin-
cipal is male. Principals reported this information on their questionnaires.
Uline et al. (1998: 466) describe instrumental activities as ‘academic
achievement, resource acquisition and the teaching/learning function’.
Many researchers rely on standardized achievement test scores as the
measures of instrumental activities, particularly for academic achievement
and the teaching/learning functions. At the time of this study, standardized
achievement testing was in the pilot stage in Paraguay; therefore, I elected
to utilize students’ final grades for mathematics. Two observed measures
(M5 and M6) index the instrumental activities construct. The first variable,
M5, is the average of fifth-grade students’ year-end grades in mathematics.
Similarly, M6 is the average of sixth-grade students’ year-end grades in
mathematics. Principals calculated the overall average in mathematics for
fifth and sixth grades at their schools and reported this information on their
questionnaires.
Schiefelbein and Wolff (1993: 24) report that repetition of one or more
grades by students in Latin American public primary schools tells us
‘conclusively that something is wrong with the education system’. It appears
to be of little or no benefit to students in these schools; represents an enor-
mous drain on resources; and is an important measure of how efficient
schools are at moving a cohort of children from Grade 1 through Grade 6.
High repetition rates are especially problematic for children in marginal,
urban areas and the more remote rural regions often leading to increased
academic failure and eventual dropout.
Repetition rates at the school level should serve as a kind of warning
system that triggers closer investigation of the education process at a partic-
ular school. The school effectiveness literature (Sammons 1999: 209) points
to the benefits from active principal participation in monitoring student
achievement, school improvement programmes and the climate for learning
and teaching. While there are many reasons why students repeat one or more
grades and/or drop out of school (McGinn and Borden 1995: 128–132),
repetition is the largest single efficiency problem in Latin American schools.
It seems especially urgent that a public, primary school principal who faces
high repetition rates must determine the reasons for this problem and take
steps to address it.
216 A. M. BORDEN
Three observed measures index the school efficiency construct: the repe-
tition rates for fourth, fifth and sixth grades (GRADE4R, GRADE5R and
GRADE6R). The Ministerio de Educación y Culto provided the number
of students repeating by grade level and shift for each school in the sample.
I calculated the repetition rate for each grade for each school.
The LISREL output provides parameter estimates for the paths between
the observed measures and the latent variables they index. We examine the
completely standardized solution in the output because this allows us to
compare observed measures of the same construct that have been measured
using different metrics. For example, the school SES construct is indexed by
three observed measures (EQUIP, SCHINFRA and LIB), each one
measured by a different scale.

Table 2 presents the standardized parameter estimates for the observed
measures of the latent variables. The latent variables are arranged horizon-
tally and their corresponding observed measures appear in the column to
the left.
Examination of the standardized parameter estimates for the paths
between the observed measures and the construct they index tells us about
their relative validity. For example, we can see in Table 2 that the most valid
measure of Principal Quality is PYRSTCH, the number of years of teaching
experience the principal has.
By the same token, we can also see that GRADE6R (sixth-grade repeti-
tion rate) is the least valid measure of School Efficiency and that SCHINFRA
Table 2. Standardized parameter estimates for the observed measures
Principal Principal Principal

School SES teaches quality gender
EQUIP 0.4168*** — — —
SCHINFRA 0.2942*** — — —
LIB 0.4058*** — — —
PRINTCH — 1.0000 — —
PEDUCLV — — 0.3278** —
PYRSTCH — — 0.4327*** —
YRSPRIN — — 0.2388** —
PSEX — — — 1.0000
Principal’s role Principal’s role Instrumental School

‘outside’ ‘inside’ activities efficiency
SUPPORT 0.9556*** — — —
EXPECT 0.9352*** — — —
TCHLN — 1.0000 — —
M5 — — 0.9425*** —
M6 — — 0.7999*** —
GRADE4R — — — 0.6559**
GRADE5R — — — 0.6821**
GRADE6R — — — 0.2201*
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Table 3. Squared multiple correlations for the observed measures of the latent
variables
Principal Principal Principal

School SES teaches quality gender
EQUIP 0.1737 — — —
SCHINFRA 0.0865 — — —
LIB 0.1647 — — —
PRINTCH — 1.0000 — —
PEDUCLV — — 0.1075 —
PYRSTCH — — 0.1873 —
YRSPRIN — — 0.0570 —
PSEX — — 1.0000
Principal’s role Principal’s role Instrumental School

‘outside’ ‘inside’ activities efficiency
SUPPORT 0.9131 — — —
EXPECT 0.8747 — — —
TCHLN — 1.0000 — —
M5 — — 0.8884 —
M6 — — 0.6399 —
GRADE4R — — — 0.4302
GRADE5R — — — 0.4653
GRADE6R — — — 0.0484
(the school’s infrastructure) is the least valid measure of School SES. We can
draw similar inferences from the rest of the values in Table 2, taking note
that all of these standardized parameter estimates are statistically significant.
The LISREL output also provides squared multiple correlations for each
of the observed measures. These estimates function as a type of R-square
statistic and ‘show the proportion of variance in an indicator that is explained
by its underlying latent variable’ (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw 2000: 90).
The squared multiple correlations for the observed measures are
presented in Table 3. Some of these values are relatively small, suggesting
that there is ‘noise’ or measurement error; thus highlighting the difficulties
researchers encounter when attempting to measure such concepts as school
SES, principal quality and school efficiency.
Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics and the estimated correlation
matrix for the observed variables that underlie the constructs in Figure 1.
Results
I conducted structural equation modelling (SEM) using LISREL 8.0

(Jöreskog and Sörbom 1996) to fit the hypothesized model because this
method allows me to ask and answer complex questions about the data
(Kelloway 1998). A series of equations relate each latent variable to its
observed measures. The structural model tells us about the simultaneous
218 A. M. BORDEN
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and estimated correlation matrix for the observed
variables (n = 256)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 EQUIP 0.20 0.4 1.00 — — — — — — —

2 SCHINFRA 6.62 0.99 0.15* 1.00 — — — — — —
3 LIB 1.15 1.44 0.21*** 0.16* 1.00 — — — — —
4 PRINTCH 0.56 0.5 −0.37*** −0.26*** −0.32*** 1.00 — — — —
5 PEDUCLV 2.78 1.19 0.12* 0.13* 0.20** −0.28*** 1.00 — — —
6 PYRSTCH 6.79 5.68 0.16** 0.13* 0.20** −0.36*** 0.18** 1.00 — —
7 YRSPRIN 7.37 5.54 0.11∼ 0.07 0.10∼ −0.16** −0.01 0.16* 1.00 —
8 PSEX 0.55 0.5 0.06 0.16** 0.02 −0.24*** −0.02 0.21*** −0.01 1.00
9 SUPPORT 53.32 8.97 0.03 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.01 −0.02
10 EXPECT 37.83 6.05 0.07 0.14* 0.12∼ 0 0.07 0.07 0.03 −0.02
11 TCHLN 48.11 8.62 0.07 0.13* 0.13* −0.01 0.06 0.08 0.06 −0.01
12 M5 2.95 0.83 −0.06 0.04 −0.07 −0.04 −0.11∼ −0.07 −0.14* 0.14*
13 M6 3.10 0.88 −0.05 0.04 −0.05 −0.08 −0.05 −0.01 −0.11∼ 0.09
14 GRADE4R 6.29 8.62 −0.02 0.05 0.05 −0.04 −0.04 0.01 0.03 0.01
15 GRADE5R 4.69 8.98 −0.03 0.07 0.07 −0.05 −0.04 −0.05 0.11∼ 0.06
16 GRADE6R 1.69 5.15 0.04 0.01 0.00 −0.1 0.06 −0.07 0.07 −0.02
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 EQUIP — — — — — — — —
2 SCHINFRA — — — — — — — —
3 LIB — — — — — — — —
4 PRINTCH — — — — — — — —
5 PEDUCLV — — — — — — — —
6 PYRSTCH — — — — — — — —
7 YRSPRIN — — — — — — — —
8 PSEX — — — — — — — —
9 SUPPORT 1.00 — — — — — — —
10 EXPECT 0.89*** 1.00 — — — — — —
11 TCHLN 0.93*** 0.91*** 1.00 — — — — —
12 M5 0.06 0.05 0.05 1.00 — — — —
13 M6 0.08 0.07 0.11∼ 0.75*** 1.00 — — —
14 GRADE4R 0 0 0.02 −0.08 −0.07 1.00 — —
15 GRADE5R −0.1 −0.11∼ −0.08 −0.10∼ −0.11∼ 0.45*** 1.00 —
16 GRADE6R 0.05 0.03 0.03 −0.17** −0.14* 0.14* 0.13* 1.00
∼p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
relationships among the latent or underlying constructs. Figure 2 presents

the hypothesized relationships among the underlying constructs together
with their standardized parameter estimates. The overall or global fit of the
model with the data is good, χ2 = 76.48 (df = 89, p = 0.83); RMSEA = 0.0;
SRMR = 0.04; GFI = 0.97; CFI = 1.00. I examined the completely stan-
dardized solution because this allows me to compare constructs that have
been measured using different metrics.
Figure 2. Hypothesized structural model for the eight latent constructs with stan-
dardized parameter estimates for the paths and the R-square statistics for the con-
structs ‘explained’ by the model. ∼ p < 0.10, *p < 0.05. Note: Goodness-of-fit indices: χ2
= 76.48 (df = 89, p = 0.83); RMSEA = 0.00; RMR = 0.043; GFI = 0.97; CFI = 1.00.
Hypothesized structural model for the eight latent constructs with standardized parameter estimates for the paths and the R-square statistics for the constructs ‘explained’ by the model. ∼ p < 0.10, *p < 0.05. Note: Goodness-of-fit indices: χ2 = 76.48 (df = 89, p = 0.83); RMSEA = 0.00; RMR = 0.043; GFI = 0.97; CFI = 1.00
These parameter estimates are standardized regression coefficients and

Figure 2.
are understood in correlational terms. This makes interpretation easier

(Diamantopoulos and Siguaw 2000: 21) and affords ‘insights into the rela-
tive impact’ of the constructs on each other.
Principals who are better educated and have more teaching and admin-
istrative experience are viewed by teachers as more committed to creating
and sustaining a school climate supportive of the learning and teaching
process (β = 0.54, p < 0.05). Similarly, we can say that teachers view better
educated, more experienced principals as being more knowledgeable about
pedagogy and as taking an active role in observing and improving the teach-
ing and learning process (β = 0.60, p < 0.05)
There is no statistically significant effect of gender on the teachers’
perceptions of the principal’s activities ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ the classroom
(β = −0.05 and −0.05 respectively). This does not necessarily mean that male
and female principals behave in the same fashion. It merely suggests that
when the teachers examine the principal’s activities ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ the
classroom, the principal’s gender does not influence the teachers’ assess-
ment of the principal’s activities.
There is a statistically significant, positive effect of the principal’s teach-
ing responsibilities on the teachers’ perceptions of principals’ activities
220 A. M. BORDEN
‘outside’ (β = 0.44, p < 0.05) and ‘inside’ the classroom (β = 0.46, p <
0.05). This positive association between the Principal Teaches construct
and the Principal’s Activities ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ the classroom is not
surprising. Teachers may view more favourably principals who have teach-
ing responsibilities; teaching principals appear to be peers and not ‘the
boss’. Teaching principals are ‘in the trenches’, experiencing the same chal-
lenges, limitations and successes as peers who have no administrative
responsibilities.
The principal’s activities ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ the classroom do not have
a statistically significant impact on ‘instrumental activities’. Consequently,
it would not be prudent to generalize these findings to the population of
Paraguayan public primary school principals. However, for the principals in

this sample at least, regardless of teaching responsibilities, the activities prin-
cipals undertake to affect what goes on ‘inside’ the classroom have a greater
effect on student outcomes than the activities they undertake ‘outside’ the
classroom (β = 0.53 vs. β = −0.23).
The negative coefficient between ‘outside’ and ‘instrumental activities’
is not unexpected. Principals in this sample who teach have limited oppor-
tunities to undertake activities ‘outside’ the classroom, at least during the
school day, hence this relatively moderate, negative coefficient. What is
intriguing is the positive coefficient between the principal’s activities ‘inside’
the classroom and ‘instrumental activities’. This positive coefficient tells us
that, for the principals in this sample, regardless of teaching responsibilities,
greater activity ‘inside’ the classroom is associated with higher levels of
student outcomes.
There is a modest, statistically significant effect of ‘instrumental activi-
ties’ on ‘school efficiency’ (β = −0.17, p < 0.10) indicating that higher grades
in mathematics are associated with lower repetition rates.
The effects of the ‘principal teaches’ and ‘school SES’ constructs on
‘instrumental activities’ are statistically significant (β = −0.82, p < 0.05 and
β = −0.93, p < 0.05) and act together to have an effect on school outcomes.
These parameter estimates tell us that students in poorer schools, where the
principal teaches have lower achievement than students in poorer schools
where the principal does not teach. The same relationship would hold true
for wealthier schools, although it would not be as likely in Paraguay because
there are fewer schools in Paraguay with higher SES and a principal who
teaches. In this sample, regardless of school SES, only 13% of the principals
who are in schools classified as urban by the Ministerio de Educación y
Culto have teaching responsibilities, while 66% of principals in rural schools
also teach.
The key to interpreting the effect of Principal Teaches on Instrumental
Activities lies in understanding what I attempt to capture with the School
SES and Principal Teaches constructs. The School SES construct repre-
sents a set of conditions at a school: the nature of the physical plant, the pres-
ence of equipment such as typewriters, computers, projectors, TVs, VCRs
and the availability and utility of a school library. Differences in school loca-
tion and teacher quality are related to this construct. Poorer schools, as
measured by School SES, are more likely to be classified as rural. They are
also more likely to be staffed by less experienced teachers with lower levels
of educational attainment. Differences in the principals are also associated

with this construct. The principals at poorer schools have lower levels of
education attainment, fewer years of experience and are more likely to have
teaching responsibilities.
I believe that much of the difference between schools is captured by the
School SES construct, which leaves the question: What does the Principal
Teaches construct capture? It represents the principal’s availability to be
involved in instructional improvement activities during school hours
(Rivarola et al. 1998). Under current models of instructional improvement,
the principal has an important role to play in observing teachers and working
with them to strengthen (or change) their practice (Sergiovanni 1998, Gray
et al. 1999, Elmore 2000, Hoachlander et al. 2001). Principals who teach
clearly have less time to devote to instructional improvement. Less attention
to instructional improvement at a school is not likely to lead to improve-
ments in student performance; hence, the negative effect of the Principal
Teaches construct on Instrumental Activities.
Discussion
Schools in Latin America are increasingly portrayed as autonomous learning

organizations that must respond to the demands and concerns of multiple
stakeholders (Sallán 1998b, Alvariño et al. 2000, Pozner 2000). Education
reform efforts in Paraguay and across Latin America are focused on change
at the building level. Such reforms, which usually include some form of
decentralization of decision-making to the school and the community,
cannot take place without the active involvement of the principal and a
change in the principal’s role. The school leader has the potential to make
or break education reform efforts at the classroom and school building
levels. Principals are critical actors who are likely to have a positive impact
on improving quality in school processes.
Many countries are answering the challenges of transforming educa-
tional administration by allowing for changes in the school principal’s role.
There is a growing sense in Latin American countries that the principal, in
many cases while acting in concert with others, must provide leadership to
meet the demands of education reform efforts in the twenty-first century.
Because the principal as instructional leader is still a relatively new concept
in many Latin American countries (Borden 2002), strengthening the princi-
pal’s involvement in the learning and teaching process has the potential to
contribute to school improvement by addressing ‘inadequate teaching, too
little time on task, lack of teaching materials and inadequate management
and incentives’ (Moura 2000: 10).
I hypothesized a model that I believe captures important relations among
principals’ characteristics, their activities ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ the classroom
and school outcomes. I tested this model to answer two research questions:
(1) Is there a relation between principals’ characteristics and their instruc-
tional leadership activities as perceived by teachers? (2) Is there a relation
between the principals’ instructional leadership activities as perceived by
teachers and school outcomes?
222 A. M. BORDEN
I found that the answer to the first research question is yes; that better
prepared, more experienced principals (in both teaching and administra-
tion) are viewed more favourably by teachers in terms of their instructional
leadership activities ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ the classroom.
The answer to the second research question is also yes; that there is a
relation between principals’ instructional leadership activities and school
outcomes. When I compare schools of similar SES, student achievement is
higher at schools where principals are available to take part in efforts to
improve instruction (i.e. they do not have teaching responsibilities) than at
schools where the principals are not available. In turn, higher levels of
student achievement are associated with lower repetition rates.
Holding the school’s SES constant, the principal’s availability to partic-

ipate in efforts to improve instruction has the greatest impact in this model
on instrumental activities (student achievement), suggesting that a set of
policies might be considered to free principals from some or all of their
teaching responsibilities as a way to positively impact student success. These
may include: (1) moving from double to single shift schools, perhaps by
setting up multigrade/multiple teacher classrooms in smaller, rural schools;
(2) establishing instructional improvement teams at the school and/or clus-
ter level; and (3) restructuring or reconfiguring grade levels within a school
and/or shift.
I believe it is important to increase the amount of time that the principal
is available to support efforts to improve instruction, perhaps by limiting
administrative duties or the time spent on them. Of equal importance is what
that person does with the time once it becomes available. The positive effect
of the principal’s availability on student outcomes is of relatively small
magnitude. I suggest that one reason for this could be that principals who do
not teach are spending their time on activities other than those directly tied
to instructional improvement. Policy options to address this might include:
(1) the development of pre-service and in-service training programmes to
prepare principals to assume instructional leadership; (2) the establishment
of criteria for the selection, appointment, evaluation and dismissal of princi-
pals; (3) the redefinition of the cluster leader role; and (4) the transfer of
responsibilities unrelated to the supervision of instruction to other school
personnel, either at the school or at the cluster level.
It is worth noting that this issue of principals without teaching assign-
ments spending their time on activities other than those related to instruc-
tional leadership and school improvement is not limited to Paraguay. There
is similar concern in the USA, for example, where principals find it challeng-
ing to set aside the kind of time required to be authentic instructional leaders
and take action to positively impact the learning and teaching process in
their schools (Zepeda 2007, Marshall 2008).
The principal is a challenging figure in education research. Efforts to
answer questions about the principal’s impact face numerous obstacles, not
the least of which are how to define school leadership, the difficulties in spec-
ifying statistical models that capture the complexity of schools, including
what to measure and how to measure it and the challenges of data collection.
As governments press forward and undertake education reform, it is
important, I believe, to develop a deeper understanding of how reforms are
and are not implemented at the school level and the role the principal can
play in the implementation. In Paraguay, for example, it was only with the
education reform efforts in the mid-1990s that the principal was identified
as an important actor in school improvement. Officials at the Ministerio de
Educación y Culto recognize that even in a system that is still heavily central-
ized, schools are not the same in either appearance or performance and that
some of that variation can be attributed to differences in the actions of the
principals.
The findings from this study are encouraging for those interested in
redefining the principal’s role in public primary schools in Paraguay and in
similar countries across the region. They tell us that at schools where prin-
cipals are available to take part in instructional improvement activities,

student achievement is higher than at schools where principals are not avail-
able because they have teaching responsibilities. But the findings also raise
important questions about what can and should be done to address the role
of school leadership in education reform and the conditions in which princi-
pals in Paraguay, and countries like it, must function.
Acknowledgements
The author appreciates the guidance and comments provided by the editor
and two anonymous reviewers; their insights make this a much stronger
paper. The author also wishes to thank Ira Bogotch for his comments on
earlier drafts of this paper and Kieran M. Killeen for his remarks as discus-
sant when an even earlier version of this paper was presented at AERA in
2005.
Notes
1. For instance, the 2009 school year in Paraguay was scheduled to run from February 25 through
November 30. On July 21, the Minister of Education announced that 20 instructional days had
already been lost (http://www.ultimahora.com/notas/238126-YA-SE-PIERDEN-20-DÍAS).
2. Model conceptualization, as explained by Diamantopoulos and Siguaw (2000: 6), ‘is concerned
with the development of theory-based hypotheses to serve as the guide for linking the latent variables
to each other and to their corresponding indicators … the conceptualized model should be your
educated perception of the way in which the latent variables are linked together based upon theories
and evidence provided by your discipline’s literature’. The model for this research was posited in
2000, based on the existing literature, and determined the kinds of data that were collected for this
study.
References
Administración Nacional de Educación Pública [National Public Education Administration] (1999)

Estudio de casos en diez escuelas de contexto sociocultural desfavorable [Case study of ten
disadvantaged schools]. Estudio de los Factores Institucionales y Pedagógicos que Inciden en los Apren-
dizajes en Escuelas Primarias de Contextos Sociales Desfavorecidos en el Uruguay [Study of the Insti-
tutional and Pedagogical Factors that Affect Learning in Disadvantaged Primary Schools in
Uruguay], (Montevideo: Copygraf S.R.L.), pp. 69–123.
224 A. M. BORDEN
Alvariño, C., Arzola, S., Brunner, J. J., Recart, M. O. and Vizcarra, R. (2000) Gestión escolar: un
estado del arte de la literature [School administration: state of the art of the literature]. Paideia,
29, 15–44.
Andrews, R. L. (1989) Teacher and supervisor assessment of principal leadership and academic
achievement, in: B. Creemers, T. Peters and D. Reynolds (eds) School Effectiveness and School
Improvement (Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitinger), pp. 211–221.
Ballou, D. and Podgursky, M. (1995) What makes a good principal? How teachers assess the perfor-
mance of principals. Economics of Education Review, 14, 243–252.
Bamburg, J. D. (1990) Instructional leadership, school goals, and student achievement: exploring the
relationship between means and ends, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Boston, MA, 16–20 April.
Barnett, K. and McCormick, J. M. (2004) Leadership and individual principal-teacher relationships in
schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 406–434.
Barth, R. (1980) Run School Run (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Barth, R. (2001) Learning by Heart (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Beck, L. G. and Murphy, J. (1993) Understanding the Principalship: Metaphorical Themes 1920s–1990s
(New York: Teachers College Press).
Bentler, P. M. and Chou, C. P. (1987) Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and
Research, 16, 78–117.
Bista, M. B. and Glasman, N. S. (1998) Principals’ approaches to leadership, their antecedents and
student outcomes. Journal of School Leadership, 8, 109–136.
Bolman, L. G., Johnson, S. M., Murphy, J. T. and Weiss, C. H. (1990) Re-thinking School Leader-
ship: An Agenda for Research and Reform (Cambridge, MA: National Center for Educational
Leadership).
Borden, A. M. (1996) Curso de formación en gestión y administración educacional para directores
de áreas educativas: informe de la primera etapa [Training course in school administration for
cluster leader principals: report on the first phase]. Final report for the Harvard Institute for
International Development and the Ministry of Education and Culture of Paraguay.
Borden, A. M. (1999) The reliability and validity of the CALDES: a pilot study of a Spanish language
questionnaire to survey Paraguayan primary school teachers about principals’ leadership activi-
ties. Qualifying Paper for Administration, Planning, and Social Policy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Graduate School of Education).
Borden, A. M. (2002) School principals in Latin America and the Caribbean: leaders for change or
subjects of change?, paper presented at the meeting of the Education and Human Resources Training
Network. Available online at the Inter-American Development Bank website: http://wwwt.iadb.
org/int/DRP/esp/Red4/Documentos/BordenAbril4-5-2002eng.pdf.
Carnoy, M. (2002) Están funcionando las reformas educativas en Latinoamérica? Nuevas perspec-
tivas. Documento de trabajo, Red de Educación, tercera reunión: educación secundaria, Banco
Interamericano de Desarrollo [Are education reforms working in Latin America? New perspec-
tives. Working paper, Education Network, third meeting: secondary education, Inter-American
Development Bank], Washington, DC.
Casassus, J., Cusato, S., Froemel, J. E. and Plafox, J. C. (2000) Primer estudio internacional comparativo:
sobre lenguaje, matemática y factores asociados, para alumnos del tercer y cuarto grado de la educación
básica. [First international comparative study: language arts, mathematics and associated factors,
for third and fourth grade students in primary education] (Santiago, Chile: Laboratorio Lati-
noamericano de Evaluación de la Calidad de la Educación [Latin American Laboratory for the
Evaluation of Education Quality]).
Chapman, D. W. and Burchfield, S. (1993) Headmasters’ beliefs about their role in improving student
performance. Research/technical report, Learning Systems Institute, Improving the Efficiency of
Educational Systems Consortium (Florida: State University at Tallahassee).
Cotton, K. (2003) Principals and Student Achievement: What the Research Says (Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development, ASCD).
Creemers, B. P. M. and Scheerens, J. (1994) Developments in the educational effectiveness research
programme. International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 121–140.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J. A. (2000) Introducing LISREL: A Guide for the Uninitiated (London:
Sage).
Dirección de Planificación [Department of Planning] (1999) Paraguay: la Educación en Cifras 1998
[Paraguay: Education in Numbers 1998] (Asunción, Paraguay: Ministerio de Educación y Culto
[Ministry of Education and Culture]).
Dirección General de Información, Monitoreo, Planificación y Calidad Educativa (2007) Paraguay: la

Educación en Cifras 2007 [Paraguay: Education in Numbers 2007] (Asunción, Paraguay: Ministerio
de Educación y Culto).
Elmore, R. (2000) Building a New Structure for School Leadership (Washington, DC: Albert Shanker
Institute).
Espínola, V. (2000) Autonomía escolar: factores que contribuyen a una escuela más efectiva. Documento
de Discusión [School autonomy: factors that contribute to a more effective school. Discussion
Document] (Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank).
Fowler, F. J. (1995) Improving Survey Questions, Vol. 38 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
Fuller, B. and Clarke, P. (1994) Culturally stimulating school effects. Review of Educational Research,
64, 119–157.
Georgiades, W. D. H. and Jones, H. L. (1989) A Review of Research on Headmaster and School Principal-
ship in Developing Countries. PHREE Background Paper Series (Washington, DC: World Bank).
Goldring, E. B. and Pasternack, R. (1994) Principals’ coordinating strategies and school effectiveness.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 239–253.
Gray, J., Hopkins, D., Reynolds, D., Wilcox, B., Farrell, S. and Jesson, D. (1999) Improving Schools:
Performance and Potential (Lancaster: Economic and Social Research Council).
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L. and Davis, K. (1990) What makes a difference? School context, principal
leadership, and student achievement. Occasional Paper 3 (Cambridge, MA: National Center for
Educational Leadership).
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L. and Davis, K. (1996) School context, principal leadership, and student read-
ing achievement. Elementary School Journal, 96, 527–549.
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. H. (1996) Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a review of
empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 5–44.
Hallinger, P. and Leithwood, K. (1994) Introduction: exploring the impact of principal leadership.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5, 206–218.
Harber, C. and Dadey, A. (1993) The job of headteacher in Africa: research and reality. International
Journal of Educational Development, 13, 147–160.
Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J. and Marcoulides, G. A. (1990) Instructional leadership and school achieve-
ment: validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26, 94–125.
Hernández, M., Lázaro, W. and Flores, I. (2000) Escuelas públicas de I y II ciclo de educación básica exito-
sas y no exitosas: factores que influyen en tal situación. [Successful and unsuccessful lower and upper
level public primary schools: influential factors] (San Salvador, El Salvador: Fundación
Empresarial para el Desarrollo Educativo (FEPADE) [Business Foundation for Education
Development]).
Hoachlander, G., Alt, M. and Beltranena, R. (2001) Leading School Improvement: What Research Says. A
review of the literature (Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board).
Jaeger, R. M. (1993) Statistics: A Spectator Sport, 2nd edn (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).
Jamentz, K. (1998) Standards: From Document to Dialogue (San Francisco: WestEd).
Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. (1996) LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide (Chicago: Scientific Software
International, Inc.).
Kelloway, E. K. (1998) Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher’s Guide (Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage).
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1999) The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership
on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 679–706.
Leithwood, K. and Levin, B. (2005) Assessing school leader and leadership programme effects on
pupil learning: conceptual and methodological challenges. Research Report RR662 (London:
Department for Educational and Skills).
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S. and Whalstrom, K. (2004) How leadership influences
student learning. A Review of Research for the Learning from Leadership Project (New York:
The Wallace Foundation).
Leitner, D. (1994) Do principals affect student outcomes: an organizational perspective. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5, 219–238.
Light, R. J., Singer, J. D. and Willett, J. B. (1990) By Design: Planning Research on Higher Education
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Litwin, M. S. (1995) How to Measure Survey Reliability and Validity, Vol. 7 (Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage).
Loera Varela, A. (2001) Cómo transformar las escuelas? [How should schools be transformed?], in
Lecciones desde la Gestión Escolar y la Práctica Pedagógica [Lessons from School Administration and
226 A. M. BORDEN
Pedagogical Practice] (Mexico: Subsecretaria de Planeación y Coordinación, Dirección General

de Evaluación [Subsecretary of Planning and Coordination, General Department of Evaluation]).
Marshall, K. (2008) The big rocks: priority management for principals. Principal Leadership, 8, 16–22.
McGinn, N. F. and Borden, A. M. (1995) Framing Questions, Constructing Answers: Linking Research with
Education Policy for Developing Countries (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Institute for International
Development).
Ministerio de Educación y Culto [Ministry of Education and Culture] (1996) Paraguay 2020: Enfrente-
mos Juntos el Desafío Educativo, Plan Estratégico de la Reforma Educativa [Paraguay 2020: Let’s
meet our educational challenges together, Strategic Plan for Education Reform] (Asunción, Para-
guay: Ministerio de Educación y Culto [Ministry of Education and Culture]).
Ministerio de Educación y Culto [Ministry of Education and Culture] (1998) Planteamientos funda-
mentales del nuevo modelo de gestión escolar [Fundamental proposals for a new model of
school administration], in: Avances de la Reforma Educativa: Perspectivas, Estratégicas y Políticas
de la Educación Paraguaya [Advances in Education Reform: Perspectives, Strategies and Poli-

cies for Paraguayan Education] (Asunción, Paraguay: Ministerio de Educación y Culto [Minis-
try of Education and Culture]), pp. 278–291.
Morriss, S. B., Tin, L. G. and Coleman, M. (1999) Leadership stereotypes and styles of female
Singaporean principals. Compare, 29, 191–202.
Moura, C. d. (2000) Reforming primary and secondary education in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Sustainable Development Department Sector Strategy and Policy Paper Series EDU-113
(Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank).
Murphy, J. (1994) Management of Effective Schools (London: Pergamon).
Navarro, J. C., Carnoy, M. and Castro, C. d. M. (1999) La Reforma Educativa en América Latina:
Temas, Componentes e Instruments. Perspectivas Sobre la Reforma Educativa [Education Reform in
Latin America: Topics, Components and Instruments. Perspectives on Education Reform]
(Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank).
Novara, C. (ed.) (1997) El Día a Día del Directivo Escolar [The Day to Day of the School Principal]
(Asunción, Paraguay: Ministerio de Educación y Culto [Ministry of Education and Culture]).
OREALC/UNESCO (2004) La Conclusión Universal de la Educación Primaria en América Latina: ¿Esta-
mos Realmente Tan Cerca? [Universal Primary Education in Latin America: Are We Really That
Close?] (Santiago, Chile: Oficina Regional de Educación para América Latina y El Caribe
[Regional Education Office for Latin America and the Caribbean]).
Peña, M. (2000) Importancia del rector en la política educativa [The importance of the principal in educa-
tion policy], paper presented at the Liderazgo y Gestión Educativa Conference: El Papel del Rector
[Leadership and Education Administration Conference: The Role of the Principal], Bogota,
Columbia.
Peña, M. (2005) Aprendizajes Sobre Gestión Educativa: La Experiencia de Bogotá [Lessons on Education
Administration: Bogotá’s Experience] (Bogotá, Colombia: Fundación Empresarios por la
Educación [Business People’s Foundation for Education]).
Peterson, K. D. and Deal, T. E. (1998) How leaders influence the culture of schools. Educational
Leadership, 56, 28–30.
Pozner, P. (2000) Módulo 1: Desafíos de la educación [Module 1: The challenges of education], in:
P. Ravela (ed.) Diez Módulos Destinados a los Responsables de los Procesos de Transformación
Educativa [Ten Modules for Those Responsible for Transforming Education] (Buenos Aires:
IIPE Buenos Aires-UNESCO).
Reimers, F. (1993) Análisis del sistema educativo en el Paraguay: Sugerencias de política y estrate-
gia para su reforma. Informe para Centro Paraguayo de Estudios Sociológicos y [Analysis of
the education system in Paraguay: Suggestions for policies and strategies for its reform.
Report for the Paraguayan Center for Sociological Studies]. Harvard Institute for Interna-
tional Development.
Reimers, F. (2000) Educational opportunity and policy in Latin America, in: F. Reimers (ed.) Unequal
Schools, Unequal Chances: The Challenges to Equal Opportunity in the Americas (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University, David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies), pp. 55–107.
Rivarola, M. M., Benítez, M. L. E. M. d., Ramírez, J. M. and Escobar, J. D. (1998) Estudio explorato-
rio sobre experiencias valiosas de círculos de aprendizaje [Exploratory study of worthwhile expe-
riences with learning circles], in: Avances de la Reforma Educativa: Perspectivas, Estratégicas y
Políticas de la Educación Paraguaya [Advances in Education Reform: Perspectives, Strategies and
Policies for Paraguayan Education] (Asunción, Paraguay: Ministerio de Educación y Culto
[Ministry of Education and Culture]), pp. 241–275.
Sallán, J. G. (1998a) Enfoques y estadios de desarrollo de la gestión del centro escolar [Focuses and
stages of development of school administration], in: R. R. Valdes (ed.) Gestión Escolar: Variable
Estratégica para una Educación de Calidad [School Administration: Strategic Variable for Educa-
tion Quality] (Santiago de Chile: Facultad de Educación [College of Education], Pontificia
Universidad Católica de Chile), p. 143.
Sallán, J. G. (1998b) Reflexiones en torno a la autonomía institucional [Reflections on institutional
autonomy], in: R. R. Valdes (ed.) Gestión Escolar: Variable Estratégica para una Educación de
Calidad [School Administration: Strategic Variable for Education Quality] (Santiago de Chile:
Facultad de Educación [College of Education], Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile), pp.
89–130.
Sammons, P. (1999) School Effectiveness: Coming of Age in the Twenty-First Century (Lisse,The
Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger).
Schettini, P. and Pozner, P. (2001) Gestión Educativa y Escolar en el Continente [School and Educational
Administration on the Continent] (Buenos Aires: OEA-Argentina).

Schiefelbein, E. and McGinn, N. (2008). Learning to Educate: Proposals for the Reconstruction of Education
in Latin America (Paris: UNESCO).
Schiefelbein, E. and Wolff, L. (1993) Repetición y rendimiento inadecuado en escuelas primarias de
América Latina: magnitudes, causas, relaciones y estrategias [Grade repetition and inadequate
student performance in Latin American primary schools: importance, causes, relationships and
strategies]. Boletín, 30, 17–50.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1998) Leadership as pedagogy, capital development and school effectiveness.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1, 37–46.
Silins, H. C. (1994) Leadership characteristics that make a difference to schools, paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, 4–8 April.
Smylie, M. A. and Hart, A. W. (1999) School leadership for teacher learning and change: a human and
social capital development perspective, in: J. Murphy and K. S. Louis (eds) Handbook of Research
on Educational Administration, 2nd edn (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass), pp. 421–441.
Somech, A. (2005) Directive versus participative leadership: two complementary approaches to manag-
ing school effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 777–800.
Tanaka, J. S. (1987) ‘How big is big enough?’ Sample size and goodness of fit in structural equation
models with latent variables. Child Development, 58, 134–146.
Teddlie, C. and Stringfield, S. (1993) Schools Make a Difference: Lessons Learned from a 10-Year Study of
School Effects (New York: Teachers College Press).
Uline, C. L., Miller, D. M. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (1998) School effectiveness: the underlying
dimensions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34, 462–483.
UNESCO and ECLAC (2005) Investing better in order to invest more: financing and management of
education in Latin America and the Caribbean, paper presented at the 30th session of the
Economic Commission of Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), San Juan, Puerto Rico, 29
June–2 July 2004. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001390/139043e.pdf.
Uribe B., M. (2005) El liderazgo docente en la construcción de la cultura escolar de calidad: un desafío
de orden superior [Teacher leadership in the construction of a quality school culture: a challenge
of the highest order]. Revista PRELAC, 1, 1–10.
Valentine, J. W. and Bowman, M. L. (1988) The audit of principal effectiveness: instrumentation
for principalship research. Research project report (Columbia: Department of Educational
Administration, University of Missouri).
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J. and McNulty, B. (2003) Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of Research Tells
Us About the Effect of Leadership on Pupil Achievement (Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for
Education and Learning McREL).
Watson, P. (1985) The school makes a difference: analysis of teacher perceptions of their principal and
school climate, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Asso-
ciation, Chicago, IL, 31 March–4 April.
Witzier, B., Bosker, R. and Kruger, M. (2003) Educational leadership and pupil achievement: the
elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34, 398–425.
Zepeda, S. J. (2007) The Principal as Instructional Leader: A Handbook for Supervisors (Larchmont, NY:
Eye on Education).

International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville]

On: 24 December 2014, At: 00:15

International Journal of Leadership in

Relationships between Paraguayan

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2010.482675

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Relationships between Paraguayan principals’

Allison M. Borden is an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership in the Department of Educational

International Journal of Leadership in Education

the administration of education systems, with the implication being that

between the principals’ characteristics and their instructional leadership

A brief description of the education reform context for

Prior to the early 1990s, primary school principals in Paraguay func-

for an information culture’ (Ministerio de Educación y Culto 1996: 65).

Framework and constructs of the study

The hypothesized, composite model that I developed and tested is presented

Figure 1. Hypothesized relationships among antecedent constructs, principal’s

Hallinger et al. (1996: 541) found a positive effect of parental involve-

Paraguay have teaching responsibilities during the same instructional peri-

Principal’s instructional leadership activities

In all this research on the principal’s impact, the greatest challenge to

et al. (1990: 21), where school leadership is understood as ‘a process of

School outcomes constructs

In contrast to most developed-country research of this type, where there is

I focused on primary schools that are categorized by the Paraguayan

I drew a stratified random sample from all public primary schools in

Table 1. Stratified random sample of 300 ‘complete’ public primary schools in

Paraguayan Ministry of Number in Proportional Number with Number and percentage

‘Centro educativo’-urban 421 27 23 23/27 = 85%

Principals’ leadership activities instrument

Finally, the TCHLN variable is a sub-score based on 17 items that ask,

teachers are unaccustomed to having an opinion of the principal’s perfor-

Observed variables to measure school SES, principal quality,

of resources such as books and audio-visual materials and the availability of

measured by a different scale.

Table 2. Standardized parameter estimates for the observed measures

Principal Principal Principal

Principal’s role Principal’s role Instrumental School

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Principal Principal Principal

Principal’s role Principal’s role Instrumental School

I conducted structural equation modelling (SEM) using LISREL 8.0

1 EQUIP 0.20 0.4 1.00 — — — — — — —

relationships among the latent or underlying constructs. Figure 2 presents

These parameter estimates are standardized regression coefficients and

are understood in correlational terms. This makes interpretation easier

Paraguayan public primary school principals. However, for the principals in

of educational attainment. Differences in the principals are also associated

Schools in Latin America are increasingly portrayed as autonomous learning

Holding the school’s SES constant, the principal’s availability to partic-

cipals are available to take part in instructional improvement activities,

Administración Nacional de Educación Pública [National Public Education Administration] (1999)

Dirección General de Información, Monitoreo, Planificación y Calidad Educativa (2007) Paraguay: la

Pedagogical Practice] (Mexico: Subsecretaria de Planeación y Coordinación, Dirección General

de la Educación Paraguaya [Advances in Education Reform: Perspectives, Strategies and Poli-

Administration on the Continent] (Buenos Aires: OEA-Argentina).

You might also like

p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001.