268 K-12 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES
LaPointe, Meyerson, & Darling-Hammond (2006) reported that principals were more likely to
engage in daily or weekly practices that included: leading student learning; developing
professional learning communities; guiding instructional improvement; enhancing teacher
professional development; and using data to inform school improvement. They were less
likely to frequently engage in: facilities management; school safety and discipline; attendance
at district meetings; and, collaboration with external agencies, parents, and community.
METHODS
Participants
Participants included 149 graduate students enrolled in the fall 2006 or fall 2007 semester
of internship of a pre-service program for school principals. Additionally, all students were
enrolled in a course on the roles of the school principal during the same semester. Students
were exposed to an extensive review of literature related to the relationship of leadership
practices to the improvement of teaching and learning. Of the total, 40% worked in high
schools, 26% in middle schools, and 34% in elementary schools. Fifty-three percent of
participants completed their internships in suburban schools, with 31% in rural and 16% in
urban school settings. Among the students, 67% were female and 33% were male.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
Data collection occurred in three phases. First, interns used an open ended form to record
all of the daily leadership practices they observed their campus principals perform over a
three week period. In a follow up interview, interns shared their findings with their principals
and collaborated on additions to and clarifications of tasks and responsibilities performed in
the principalship. Second, a four-point Likert scale was developed by the researcher to
facilitate the analysis of the degree to which each of the leadership practices identified, bear a
relationship to those that improve teaching and learning in schools:
Weak (1): bears little or no relationship to the improvement of teaching and learning.
These tasks are traditional; managerial; and do not require knowledge of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment. These are usually operational in nature and routine in delivery.
Mild (2): bears some relationship to the improvement of teaching and learning. These
tasks support the structures and processes that build the school’s capacity for improved
learning, but fall short of direct involvement in collaborative work with teachers to improve
instruction.
Moderate (3): bears a relationship to the improvement of teaching and learning. These
endeavors demonstrate daily efforts to support the instructional process through direct contact
with students and teachers in the instructional setting. They are grounded in collaborative
work with teachers to improve curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Strong (4): bears an influential relationship to the improvement of teaching and learning.
These efforts demonstrate innovative thinking that supports the instructional process. They
require a deep understanding of curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Face validity was established based on: (a) a review of the literature on leadership
practices that influence student achievement, (b) feedback from graduate interns, and (c) input
from school principals. Interns used the scale to independently analyze the lists of tasks and
responsibilities collected. Third, interns and their principals engaged in the identification of
strategies that school principals could employ in order to reduce daily time in practices that