The Traditional Independent School Principal: Innovator or Inhibitor?
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578238910139834 |
| Date | 01 February 1989 |
| Published date | 01 February 1989 |
| Author | Larry R. Smith |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Innovator
or
Inhibitor?
57
The Traditional Independent
School Principal:
Innovator or Inhibitor?
by
Larry R. Smith
Queensland Department of Education, Brisbane, Australia
Several writers have suggested that genuine involvement by the school
principal is a crucial context variable influencing the level of innovation
in a school[1,2,3,4,5]. Griffin[6], for example, suggests that the principal
is responsible for establishing and maintaining the perception of the
mission of the school, while McLaren proposes that "the general tone
of the school and its staff is determined by the headmaster"[7] and
Higham argues that "there can be no possibility of taking initiatives
with which the head may disagree. The authority to initiate
.
.
.
must
come from the head[2,
p.118].
The
belief,
then, is that the principal acts
as "an organiser of professional development,
a
facilitator
to
the faculty,
and a negotiator of resources for the school
.
.
.
His personal style, level
of activity, competence and relationships with faculty and community,
all interact with his ideas
.
. . to make him a powerful determinant of
what will happen[4,
pp.28-9].
If these views are correct, it may be inferred that the level of educational
progressivism shown by the principal will convey to the staff the importance and
priority that they are expected to place on the processes of staff development
and school improvement. Australian studies by Thomas[8] and Mulford[9] found
positive links between the supportiveness of principals and the innovativeness
of primary schools and secondary schools respectively. Smyth supports this finding,
arguing that the level of in-service sponsorship and support in a school will be
substantially dependent upon the willingness of the principal to provide "(i)
Stimulation of
staff,
that charismatic quality
by
means of which the vision of what
is possible is expanded; (ii) Support, moral and material, of staff involvement in
the planning, conduct and follow-through of school-based programmes; and (iii)
Statesmanship in negotiating policy and changes in structure and practice with
individuals, groups and the staff as a whole"
[10].
The suggestion seems to be that, unless teachers are confident of the genuine
support of the
principal,
they
will
resist pressures to evaluate and, where necessary,
modify their traditional modes of operation[ll,12,13]. Indeed, the SITE project
found that even when the principal tried to remain neutral in order to observe
and evaluate the progress of an innovation "staff predominantly construed the
head's position not as indicating neutrality but as a positive indicator of lack of
To continue reading
Request your trial