Robert K. Wimpelberg

New Settings and Changing Norms for Principal Development.

During the 1980s, the field of professional development for school leaders expanded in numerous respects: raw enrollment figures, intensity and breadth of participation, types and number of in-service providers, approaches to program governance, variety of curricular and instructional approaches. Previous analyses have compared this “new inservice movement” with traditional efforts to prepare school administrators. Typically these comparisons have sought to highlight differences between pre- and post-1980 development efforts, thereby unintentionally masking important organizational and programmatic differences among the emergent programs. This article focuses specifically on describing and assessing the range of variation among the predominant professional development programs born in the 1980s. We highlight divergent trends with respect to the organizational processes and program content that characterize these programs and identify their varying potential for reaching competing policy goals. Finally, we suggest implications for both policy and practice in the field of administrative development.

Educational Change by Commission: Attempting “Trickle Down” Reform

The national commission has proven to be a venerable and persistent source of reform ideas for American education. Nearly 100 years old, the national commission has become especially popular in the 1980s. In a generic configuration, it uses the elements of the expert panel and information analysis (if not controlled research), and produces a report that includes recommendations for change as a formula for dealing with whatever inadequacies are felt to encumber elementary and/or secondary schools. Despite their popularity, little systematic analysis of the processes and procedures of national commissions has been reported, and even less frequently are concepts from political science and policy analysis enlisted to help understand the phenomenon. This article responds to these inadequacies in two ways: (a) it reviews national commission reports published since the early 1890s and finds four elements of commonality in them—their longevity as an activity, the general nature of their recommendations, their lack of attention to implementation, and the limited direct impact they have had on schools and classrooms; and (b) it compares two competing explanations of the commission processes’ popularity—a rational, prescriptive approach and a symbols-and-ceremony depiction. Finally, a composite sociopolitical thesis is advanced, based on the economic image of “trickle down.”

Schools effects on Teacher Socialization

ABSTRACT Induction experiences of beginning teachers in schools that were classified as more effective or less effective on the basis of student achievement are compared. Classroom observations, interviews, and a “Beginning Teacher Questionnaire” were used to obtain information from teachers in the two groups. Three areas of socialization were examined: assistance, monitoring, and team‐building. Results indicate that historically more effective schools were more supportive of their beginning teachers. In addition, outcome data regarding teacher performance provides evidence of more effective teaching among teachers in more supportive schools, even though initial teacher effectiveness, levels of experience, and educational attainment were not different for the two groups.

Superintending: The Undeniable Politics and Indefinite Effects of School District Leadership.

We have paid a lot of attention lately to the schoolhouse in which principals and teachers wield control over what are thought to be the determining variables in the schooling of children. As far as we know, it is the school where the changing structures (time, personnel relationships), curriculum, pedagogical methods, and parental involvement are most likely to affect childrens learning. The focus on the organizational unit of the school has been reinforced in the past decade by a renewed and reinvented press for privatization and entrepreneurship in the provision of schooling. Proposals for vouchers that would treat parents as consumers of education as a commodity on behalf of their children have morphosed into designs for charter schools that allow teachers and parents to contract with local boards or state agencies to produce desired learning outcomes by curricular and pedagogical innovaiions, under whatever governance oversight would fit the minimal regulatory needs of state government. Finally, in 1990, the Comnwnwealth of Kentucky put in place the first statewide system of management and governance procedures that mandate school decision-making councils with unusually strong authority to hire principals, consult about the employment of teachers, and allocate the educaiion budget while the central office,

The business of principals' inservice: Incentives for participation

trepreneurial programs in state departments of education, local school districts, and grass roots organizations sponsored by principals themselves. While some attention has been paid to the programmatic features of inservice for principals, little notice has been given to the organizational issues implicit in starting and sustaining such efforts. The organizational success of inservice providers may be judged on three criteria: (a) the degree to which their activities produce growth in principals and improvements in school outcomes; (b) the quality of their programming as judged against professional standards in the field of administration; and (c) the levels at which principals participate in inservice activities.

Evaluating Principals' Centers.

cater exclusively for head teachers’ agendas, they tend not to appeal to heads of secondary schools. Since leadership in schools is seen as a team function, it may be appropriate to explore the idea of school management centers whose agendas address head teachers and senior staff who perform management tasks in school. The National Development Centre for School Management Training was set up by the British government to promote management development and training for head teachers and senior staff in