Leaving fingerprints: principals’ considerations while implementing education reforms
| Date | 02 May 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2016-0014 |
| Pages | 242-260 |
| Published date | 02 May 2017 |
| Author | Chen Schechter,Haim Shaked |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy,Educational administration,Leadership in education |
Leaving fingerprints: principals’
considerations while
implementing education reforms
Chen Schechter
School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, and
Haim Shaked
Hemdat Hadarom College of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
Abstract
Purpose –Turning an education reform program into school reality greatly depends on the principal.
In certain cases, principals choose to implement reform instructions only partially. The purpose of this paper
is to explore school principals’considerations leading to their decisions not to fulfill a national reform’s
guidelines in a full and complete way.
Design/methodology/approach –This qualitative study is based on interviews with 59 school principals.
Generating themes was an inductive process, grounded in the various perspectives articulated by principals.
Findings –Data analysis yielded three major considerations: adjusting to school reality; caring for teachers;
and using discretion.
Research limitations/implications –Longitudinal studies in order to explore how principals’
considerations and mediation strategies evolve and unfold throughout the reform implementation would
be useful. The authors suggest complementing principals’verbally expressed perceptions with more objective
measures such as direct observations (recorded on video and then reflected upon), to evaluate their
considerations and mediating strategies.
Practical implications –Providing prospective and in-service principals with leadership education
programs in order to develop an upgraded understanding of their role as mediating agents between the inner
and outer spheres of school-life.
Originality/value –As principals serve as mid-level policymakers who leave their “fingerprints”on policies
received from the authorities, exploring these considerations may contribute to both the scholarship and the
practice of the leadership role in times of education reforms.
Keywords Principals, School reform
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The aim to ensure all children’s access to high quality education, together with the belief
that the strength of society and economy is inextricably linked to that of the national
school system, motivate many countries worldwide to carry out education reforms
(Addonizio and Kearney, 2012; Anderson et al., 2015). Thus, large-scale education reforms
focusing on reorganizing the entire school system rather than on merely implementing
individual school improvement initiatives have become one of the main characteristics of
current education systems (Robinson and Aronica, 2015).
For those interested in improving education reform implementation, it would be advisable
to focus not merelyon what is implementable and what works, but rather on the interactions
between policy,people and places. Thus, “contemporary implementation research specifically
aims to uncover […] how and why interactions between these dimensions’shape
implementation in particular ways”(Honig, 2006, p. 14). In this context, school principals, as
those who ultimately implement education reforms, deserve special academic attention.
Research findings point to the decisive impact of school principals on the execution of
education reforms (Spillane and Kenney, 2012). Turning policymakers’visions into school
reality greatly depends on the principal (Levin and Datnow, 2012). Basically, school
principals adhere to external guidelines; nevertheless, they often serve as mid-level
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 55 No. 3, 2017
pp. 242-260
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-01-2016-0014
Received 27 January 2016
Accepted 1 September 2016
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
242
JEA
55,3
policymakers who leave their fingerprints, so to speak, on policies received from above
(Flessa, 2012). Finding themselves at the cross-roads of differing interests and agendas of
various actors in and around the school, principals oftentimes implement a large-scale
reform incompletely, determining which parts of it they might introduce into the school and
which they prefer to filter out (Diamond, 2012; Seashore Louis and Robinson, 2012).
The focal purpose of this study was to explore elementary school principals’perceptions
when they make a decision not to fully implement the national reform’s guidelines. Thus, the
research question guiding the study was as follows:
RQ1. What are the considerations leading school principals to decide to fulfill the
guidelines of a national reform only partially?
Exploring these considerations may contribute to both scholarship and practice of
leadership in times of education reforms (Derrington and Campbell, 2015; Hallinger and Lee,
2013; Park and Jeong, 2013). We turn next to the study’s conceptual framework, which is
grounded in the literature on school principals’role during education reforms.
Theoretical background
School principals’role during education reforms
School principals have a pivotal role in the implementation of national education reforms
(Flessa, 2012). Effective results of an education reform aimed at transforming schools into more
beneficial institutions depend not only on the reform being properly designed, nor on its
conceptual foundations, but also on its successful realization by principals who lead the process
in their schools (Gawlik, 2015; McDonald, 2014; Sahlberg, 2011; Young and Lewis, 2015).
School principals may be the linchpin of effective implementation of any school-level reform
(New Leaders, 2013). Therefore, without school principals who effectively lead reform
implementation, there is little chance for sustained change in schools (Bryk et al., 2010).
Education reforms have broadened school principals’roles (Pont, 2014; Schleicher, 2012;
Sumbera et al., 2014), which have surely become more complex in recent years (Fullan, 2014).
Principals are presented with reforms as a means of maximizing school performance, and are
required to support and develop teachers and other staff m embers accordingly, setting clear
goals, and above all ensuring that their schools deliver a high quality education (Gawlik, 2015).
In particular, principals are engaged in multiple contexts –state, school district and parent
associations. This intersection of internal school goals and external reform demands is a central
concern for school principals, as it brings into question common practices and challenges the
existing state of affairs (Kaniuka, 2012; Knapp and Feldman, 2012).
The intersection of internal school goals and external reform demands can be interpreted
as a problem of institutional response, rather than implementation or compliance with
external policy demands. The effectiveness of an external policy depends not on how well
principals implement it, but rather on how they respond to the demands the policy puts in
place in their environment (Elmore, 2006). Thus, principals are not passive or active players,
but rather operate in a more strategic frame to position themselves and their organizations
in a favorable place as an instrument for developing organizational coherence (Fullan, 2014).
To achieve strategic leadership, school principals must make sense of their role, responding
to the dynamic interactions between internal school goals and needs and external reform
demands (Saltrick, 2010; Weick, 2009). This sense-making process re-centers principals’role
as local policymakers (Rice, 2010; Spillane and Kenney, 2012) and mediating agents who
develop adaptive strategies (Maxcy et al., 2010).
School principals as mediating agents during education reforms
A school principal may be seen as the one who stands at the school doorstep, between the
extra- and intra-school worlds (Kelchtermans et al., 2011). Internal and external stakeholders
243
Leaving
fingerprints
To continue reading
Request your trial