Brokering, buffering, and the rationalities of principal work
| Pages | 262-276 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-10-2016-0129 |
| Date | 09 May 2018 |
| Published date | 09 May 2018 |
| Author | Kimberly LeChasseur,Morgaen Donaldson,Erica Fernandez,Michele Femc-Bagwell |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy,Educational administration,Leadership in education |
Brokering, buffering, and the
rationalities of principal work
Kimberly LeChasseur
Department of Educational Leadership, University of Connecticut,
Storrs, Connecticut, USA
Morgaen Donaldson
University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA, and
Erica Fernandez and Michele Femc-Bagwell
Department of Educational Leadership, University of Connecticut,
Storrs, Connecticut, USA
Abstract
Purpose –Brokering and buffering represent two ways in which principals may respond to hyperrational
elements of policy demands in the current era of accountability. The purpose of this paper is to examine how
some principals broker more efficient, measurable, and predictable evaluation practices for teachers and
others buffer their teachers from inefficient, immeasurable, and unpredictable aspects of policy.
Design/methodology/approach –Qualitative data were obtained from 37 school principals and
363 teachers across 12 districts participating in a new teacher evaluation policy in one state of the USA.
Principal interviews and teacher focus groups were conducted at the beginning, middle, and end of 2012-2013.
Transcripts were coded to identify hyperrational elements of the policy and principals’brokering and
buffering practices.
Findings –All principals described elements of the new evaluation policy as inefficient, incalculable,
or unpredictable –hallmarks of hyperrationality. Principals brokered efficiency by designing schoolwide
parent goals and centralizing procedures; brokered transparency of calculation methods and focused teacher
attention on measuring effort, rather than outcomes; and encouraged collective sensemaking to facilitate
predictable procedures and outcomes. Principals buffered teachers by de-emphasizing the parent-based
component; minimizing the quantitative nature of the ratings; ceding responsibility over calculations to
district leaders; and lowering expectations to make ratings controllable.
Originality/value –The paper provides new understanding of principals’strategic leadership practices,
which represented rational responses to hyperrational policy demands. Therefore, the paper includes
recommendations for principal preparation, district support for policy implementation, and further research
on principal practice.
Keywords Principals, Parents, Brokering, Buffering, Teacher evaluation
Paper type Research paper
Principals in the USA confront expectations for constant improvement of their schools.
Accountability policies and reform initiatives often press for rapid change, yet shift
direction and focus frequently, creating a challenging context for educational leaders
(Derrington and Campbell, 2015; Halverson and Plecki, 2015). Rather than assuming that
principals always face reasonable pressures and expectations, this study begins with the
premise that some policies may ask schools and educators to engage in what they perceive to
be unreasonableactivities. One way in which policies mightdo so is by amplifying seemingly
rational presuppositions beyondtheir usefulness, creatinghyperrational leadership situations.
Thus the first goal of the study is to examine whether one policy –requiring teacher
evaluation to include parent or peer evaluators –is understood by principals to involve
elements of hyperrationality.
We know little about how educational leaders interpret controversial policies. A second
goal of the study is to examine how principals respond to policies that they deem
hyperrational. Given the demanding contexts facing them, principals serve a critical role as
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 56 No. 3, 2018
pp. 262-276
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-10-2016-0129
Received 24 October 2016
Revised 21 September 2017
Accepted 26 September 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
262
JEA
56,3
To continue reading
Request your trial