Principals’ social interactions with teachers. How principal-teacher social relations correlate with teachers’ perceptions of student engagement
| Date | 02 February 2015 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2014-0023 |
| Published date | 02 February 2015 |
| Pages | 116-139 |
| Author | Heather E. Price |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy |
Principals’social interactions
with teachers
How principal-teacher social relations
correlate with teachers’perceptions
of student engagement
Heather E. Price
Basis Policy Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA and
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to link the social interactions between principals and their
teachers to teachers’perceptions of their students’engagement with school, empirically testing
the theoretical proposition that principals influence students through their teachers in the US charter
school environment. The mediating influence of latent beliefs of trust and support are tested in
this process.
Design/methodology/approach –By analyzing pooled network and survey data collected in
15 Indianapolis charter schools using stepwise, fixed-effects regression techniques, this study tests
the association between interactions of principals and teachers, on the one hand, and teachers’
perceptions of student engagement, on the other. The extent to which latent beliefs about teachers –in
particular, trust in teachers and support of teachers by the administrators –mediate this relationship
is also tested.
Findings –Direct relationships between principal-teacher interactions and latent beliefs of trust and
support are confirmed. Direct relationships between latent beliefs and perceptions of academic
and school engagement are also confirmed. There is a relationship between principal-teacher
interactions and teacher perceptions of student engagement, but the mediating effect of latent beliefs
of trust and support accounts for much of the direct association. The reachability of the principal
remains a significant and direct influence on teachers’perceptions of academic engagement after
accounting for trust and support.
Research limitations/implications –Moving beyond principals’personality dispositions in
management and turning to the social relationships that they form with teachers adds to the
understanding of how principal leadership affects student learning. Empirically distinguishing
between the actual interactions and social dispositions of principals helps inform practical
implications. Focussing on how principals’social interactions with teachers influence teachers’
perceptions of students’engagement provides a theoretical link as to how principals indirectly
influence student achievement.
Practical implications –The relationships that principals build with teachers have real implications
on the beliefs of trust and support among teachers in a school and have a ripple effect on teachers’
perceptions of student engagement. These findings therefore suggest that frequently moving
principals among schools is not an ideal policy.
Originality/value –This study tests the theoretical boundaries of school organization research
by using a within-schools design with charter schools. It also links leadership research to outcomes
typically restricted to research on school culture and climate.
Keywords Perception, Organizational effectiveness, Organizational theory, Schools, Networks
Paper type Research paper
The discussion about the difference between school culture and school climate is a
vibrant one. As numerous reviews over the years have highlighted, school culture
typically encompasses a wider array of environmental concepts that define the schools’
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 53 No. 1, 2015
pp. 116-139
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-02-2014-0023
Received 3 February 2014
Revised 1 July 2014
27 August 2014
19 September 2014
Accepted 6 October 2014
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
116
JEA
53,1
learning conditions for students (see Anderson, 1982; Maxwell and Thomas, 1991;
Maslowski, 2006) while school climate typically refers to a narrower set of conditions
that assess the immediate and momentary temperature of the students’and teachers’
attitudes in the school (Anderson, 1982; Maxwell and Thomas, 1991; Maslowski, 2006).
Comparing a school’s climate and culture of discipline helps make the distinction clear.
We could measure the discipline climate by the level of raucousness among a group
of students, such as a senior graduating class. But the discipline culture could be
measured not by such student behaviors, but rather by the environmental conditions
that shape the climate; a military school and a Montessori school, for example, would
have very different discipline cultures. These environmental conditions are steeped
in the school’s traditions and history, which provide values and beliefs regarding
discipline. School culture, therefore, encompasses a set of values and beliefs contained
within an organizational structure that provides a context in which to execute
the values and beliefs.
The discussion regarding the organizational context of learning in the school,
discussed by Goldring et al. (2008) and built on the work of Lee and Smith (1999),
Bryk and Driscoll (1988), Bryk and Schneider (2002), and Hoy and Henderson (1983),
focusses on a middle ground between climate and culture –the school milieu.
Although none of these authors directly discusses school milieu (most subsume it
under the more general term of “school community”), they consistently say that the
local school environment has its own set of internalized norms that influence
perceptions and behaviors of both teachers and students. Milieu does not vary
by moment as climate does, yet it is not as permanent or determined as culture.
The internal constitution of a school’s learning environment that evolves from the
experiences and values of the teachers and students defines milieu in the classic sense
(Durkheim, 1912) and forms the core of Waller’s (1932) sociological discussion
on teaching.
Early theorists on charter schools harnessed the ideas set forth in previous work
on school climate and culture. These theorists discussed how the bureaucratic
organization of traditional public schools in the US evolved into a culture where school
principals had little direct power to influence their school milieu (Chubb and Moe, 1990;
Wong and Klopnott, 2009). Recent empirical work has demonstrated that, comp ared
to their traditional public school principal colleagues, principals in charter schools are
more able to organize their schools free from district administrative rules and policies
(Dressler, 2001; Price, 2012a). This loosening of school organization has not shown to
directly influence on students’learning gains (see Berends and Walberg, 2008).
Nonetheless, the idea that principals should be empowered to influence their school’s
organization in ways such as hiring teachers, choosing curriculum, and allocating
budgets has begun to ripple out into the traditional public school realm (Bryk and
Schneider, 2002; OECD, 2014; Ikemoto et al., 2014). Using charter school organizations
does widen the empirical lens with which to test the theoretical stability of effects
of within-school organization and leadership on teachers (see Berends et al., 2009;
Price, 2012a).
School milieu and study variables
The ways that principals can influence teachers within their school’s organizational
context –that is, within their school milieu –are the focus of this study. Three
dimensions of the school milieu that are consequently considered: social interactions,
117
Principals’
social
interactions
with teachers
To continue reading
Request your trial