Printy principals influence_3

Dr. Susan M. Printy
Michigan State University
*Published in School Leadership and Management, Volume 30, Number 2 (April 2010): pp. 111-126
This chapter seeks to explain the ways in which leadership makes a difference to
the quality of instruction in US schools by reviewing research published since
2000. The review of research is presented in three major sections, organized
according to the methodology used in each study. The first section looks into
quantitative studies that probe the structural relationships among members and
activities related to teaching and learning. Primarily drawing on surveys
completed by school stakeholders, these studies uncover patterns of influence
using advanced statistical methods. The second section summarizes findings
from qualitative case study research, which provide specific examples of
conditions that support the leadership patterns previously identified. The final
section offers further explanations of how these patterns of influence operate by
examining the alignment of formal and social components of interactions through
network methodology.
Keywords: principal leadership; teacher leadership; quality instruction

Pinty, S.M., Principals’ Influence on Instructional Quality: Insights from U.S. Schools
2Emerging Leaders, July 2015
This chapter seeks to explain the ways in which leadership makes a difference to the
quality of instruction in US schools by reviewing research published since 2000. In the US, K-12
schools entered the new century with increasing demands on school principals to raise student
achievement under intense public scrutiny as a result of No Child Left Behind. That legislation
changed the context within which school-based educators work, as it shifted accountability
demands from inputs and processes to outcomes (Lugg et al. 2002). The school became the unit
of analysis for improvement, and the principal of the school the one ultimately responsible for
increasing student performance.
Research on school level leadership has long sought to determine whether or not
principals have an influence on student level outcomes, particularly on student achievement.
When research focused on the activities and behaviors of principals as measures of leadership,
results suggested that principals have indirect influence on students through teachers and
instructional cultures (Hallinger and Heck 1998). More recently, thinking about what
constitutes school leadership has broadened, and as a result, approaches to measuring
leadership in research have expanded. Based on their synthesis of research, Leithwood,
Seashore Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) stated that school leadership is second only
to teaching in terms of impact on student learning. Exploring the influence of various types or
conceptions of leadership, Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe (2008) conclude that school leaders who
engage in activity closely connected to the classroom are more likely to positively influence
student learning outcomes.
Two important themes emerge from these reviews: 1) principal leadership is important
to student learning, and 2) principals influence student learning by working with (or through)
teachers or other classroom-related factors. The research directs attention to the leadership
contributions that teachers make, supporting the idea that student achievement is higher in
schools where principals and teachers work collaboratively rather than in totally different
spheres. Additionally, the prominence of teaching and leading as factors related to student
learning underscores the importance of learning more about the relationship of leadership to
teaching.
The studies reviewed here present a broad range of ways that researchers have recently
used to explore the influence that school principals have on the instructional choices that
teachers make, individually and collectively. The studies take numerous theoretical lenses,
exploring styles of principal leadership (e.g., transformational, instructional), conceptions that
integrate principal and teacher leadership contributions (e.g., integrated, distributed), and
sociocultural approaches to work and learning (e.g., communities of practice, social capital).
Some studies take into account varying contexts (e.g., grade level, accountability pressure).
Methodologically, the set of studies represent a broad range, including quantitative studies
exploring structural relationships among school and classroom factors, qualitative case studies
examining school reform efforts, and network analysis (from both quantitative and qualitative
perspectives) in schools actively working to improve. Some studies utilize mixed methodology.
The focus of this review is summarizing what recent research says about how principals work
with and through teachers to enhance the quality of instruction in schools. The assumption left
unexplored in this review is that changes in teaching will result in improved student
performance outcomes. Studies chosen are meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive.

The review of research is presented in three major sections, organized according to the
methodology used in each study. The first section looks into quantitative studies that probe the
structural relationships among members and activities related to teaching and learning.
Primarily drawing on surveys completed by school stakeholders, these studies uncover patterns
of influence using advanced statistical methods. The second section summarizes findings from
qualitative case study research, which provide specific examples of conditions that support the
leadership patterns previously identified. The final section offers further explanations of how
these patterns of influence operate by examining the alignment of formal and social components
of interactions through network methodology.
Patterns of influence
Mutuality
The first of the quantitative studies makes use of principals’ responses to queries regarding their
personal influence and the influence of various other stakeholders on decisions in the
instructional and supervisory domains in their schools (Marks and Nance 2007). Utilizing a
large US database, researchers explored how principals’ perceptions of their relative influence
varied according to the strength of their state’s accountability context, and confirmed
researhcers’ hypothesis that accountability makes a difference in how principals perceive their
work (i.e., as supported or constrained). The instructional domain of activity involves
establishing curriculum, setting performance standards, and choosing professional
development. The supervisory domain relates to hiring and evaluating teachers, setting the
budget, and establishing policies for student behavior. Results of hierarchical linear models
indicate that principals perceive that they have high influence in instructional and supervisory
activities when the teachers in their schools actively participate in decision making. This finding
suggests the benefits of mutuality in school leadership. The research offers insight into
principals’ perspectives that they exert broader influence when they join with teachers in work
that closely affects what teachers do in classrooms, including with whom they work, what is
expected of them, and how they are supported in developing new skills.
The finding of mutuality in leadership is explored more explicitly in a number of studies
that adopt a relational perspective of leadership, i.e., that leadership exists in the interactions of
leaders and followers (Rost 1991). In the school, the leadership relationship – or equation –
involves principals and teachers.
Leadership effects on teaching practice
The following studies look at the effects of principals and teacher leaders on various kinds of
instruction. Marks and Printy (2003) investigated the mutual relationship of principals and
teachers by specifying an integrated form of leadership that highlights the transformational
influence of principals as critical groundwork for authentically sharing the work of instructional
leadership with teachers. Transformational leadership, measured through teacher survey
responses, tapped the extent to which principals challenged teachers intellectually, invited them
to innovate, led change, supported teachers, and shared power with them. Shared instructional
leadership, measured by researcher coding of case data, gauged principal and teacher influence
on curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Using an extensive rubric for class observations and
evaluating assessments, researchers assessed authentic pedagogy in classrooms – looking for
instruction and assessment that require students to engage in a subject in a deep way, through

extended discussions and written assignments, and to make connections between classroom
interactions and the real world.
The study found that instructional leadership shared by principal and teacher did not
develop unless the principal intentionally sought and fostered teachers’ engagement and
innovation through transformational behaviors (Marks and Printy 2003). With data from a set
of elementary, middle and high schools undergoing restructuring efforts, hierarchical linear
models indicated that where integrated leadership (i.e., the principal was transformational and
shared instructional leadership with teachers) was normative, teachers presented evidence of
authentic pedagogy. Strong collaborative relationships oriented to improvement appear to be a
necessary requisite for quality teaching.
Research by Printy (2008) offers further insight into how principals and teachers
interact in ways that are consequential for quality instruction. As conceived for this study and
based on survey data from high school science and mathematics teachers, both principals and
department chairpersons provide formal leadership that encourages teachers to collaborate in
their communities of practice: as agenda setters, leaders establish direction and ensure that
goals and expectations are met; as knowledge brokers leaders allow teachers to focus on their
core responsibilities of teaching and learning, encourage innovation, scaffold teacher learning,
and provide adequate resources for their work; as learning motivators, school leaders develop
strong personal relationships with teachers, acknowledge their contributions, and seek their
input before making decisions. Both transformational and instructional influences are evident in
these leadership roles for principals.
In contrast to the Marks and Printy work, where integrated leadership encompasses
principal and teacher contributions, Printy measures teachers’ presence in the leadership
equation as teachers’ communities of practice. Using reports by teachers indicating with whom
they interact, how frequently, and around which issues, the researcher assigned more value to
participation and interaction outside of the high school teachers’ subject departments, arguing
that these engagements across boundaries provide greater opportunity for teachers to learn new
dispositions, skills, and approaches. The instructional measure in this study gauges teachers’ use
of standards-based pedagogy in science and mathematics, i.e., instructional practices advocated
by national disciplinary standards. Findings reveal that science teachers reported greater use of
these practices than did mathematics teachers; however, the group of teachers who reported
highest use were academic mathematics teachers and the lowest use was reported by remedial
teachers.
Although interactions among these high school teachers most commonly occurred within
their subject departments, teachers forged broad-based relationships and engaged in activities
of schoolwide import under the influence of strong principals and department chairs. It appears
that teachers’ decisions to try or adopt new instructional practices are influenced significantly by
their opportunities to learn, either through participation in various educational arenas or
interaction with a broad community, activities amenable to formal leader influence. Neither
departmental leaders nor principals, however, enhanced teachers’ use of standards-based
pedagogy. The HLM models for this work offer evidence that principals are quite distant from
instructional decisions and that department chairs might even slow down adoption of non-
routine teaching practice, at least in the context of high school mathematics and science. It is

possible that this distance is an artifact of the research design, which did not have a clear
measure of interactivity among principals and teachers around instruction.
A national study of leadership and student performance provided opportunity for
Wahlstrom and Louis (2008) to investigate influences of principal-teacher relationships on
three different measures of classroom instructional practice. The study measured principal-
teacher leadership relationships in two ways: a) sharing decision making and b) teachers’ trust
in the principal. Teacher-teacher peer relationships show up as professional community.
Researchers conceived of teachers’ classroom practice in three ways: Standard Contemporary
Practice (problem-based, discovery-centered); Focused Instruction (focus on higher order
thinking and using specific activities to maintain student engagement); and Flexible Grouping
Practice (organizing classroom to differentiate instruction by teacher purpose).
With data from teacher surveys, the study provides important insight into teachers’
instructional decision making. Regression analyses examined the influence of teachers at all
levels of schooling (e.g. elementary, middle, and high) for multiple approaches to organizing
instruction. For Standard Contemporary Practice, shared decision making is a factor, though
professional community is a stronger predictor. Results are consistent at all schooling levels. For
Focused Instruction, teachers’ trust in the principal is significant at the middle school level.
Shared decision making is important at the elementary and high school level. Professional
community is a strong predictor at all grade levels. For Flexible Grouping Practice, both
leadership variables are significant until the professional community variable enters the
equation and makes a significant contribution, consistent for all levels. Elements of professional
community (e.g., reflective dialogue, collective responsibility, deprivatized practice, and shared
norms) also have differential effects on instructional practice across schooling levels.
Change in teaching practice
One study in this section takes change in instructional practice as the dependent variable.
Supovitz, Sirinides, and May (2010), using teacher survey data, incorporate three factors
tapping principal leadership: 1) focusing organizational mission and goals; 2) encouraging a
culture of collaboration and trust; and 3) supporting instructional improvement. Teacher peer
influence also has three factors: 1) instructional conversations; 2) interaction around teaching
and learning; and 3) advice networks.
The scale for teacher reported change in instruction measures the extent to which
teachers claim they adjusted their teaching methods, student assignments, and questioning
techniques, and have improved their understanding of students. A multilevel structural model
with latent variables investigated principal and peer influences on change in teacher instruction
as it relates to student learning. Results demonstrate a positive association for both principal
and peer influence with teachers’ change in instructional practice in both English Language Arts
(ELA) and mathematics. The structural path from principal leadership to peer influence is
significant in both subjects, in fact, is the largest and most significant relationship in the model.
Study findings affirm that principals who develop compelling mission and goals, establish
cultures of collaboration and trust and encourage instructional improvement draw teachers
together to engage in joint work to improve teaching and learning. Such joint work productively
entails rich conversation, collaborative planning, and advice giving and receiving.

Test preparation
The final analysis that explicitly looks at the relationship of principal leadership to instructional
decisions comes from a mixed method study employing surveys of fourth grade teachers.
Researchers explored principals’ support for test preparation strategies and the relationship
between test prep and other instructional practices, specifically inquiry-oriented instruction and
direct instruction (Firestone et al. 2002). Test preparation strategies, oriented at preparing
students to pass the state’s accountability examination, included things like practicing
mechanics of testing including pacing, turning story problems into calculations, and writing
open-ended math answers, in addition to giving practice using commercial test preparation
materials. As conceived for the study, Inquiry-oriented Instruction is constructivist or authentic
instruction; students have opportunity to explore ideas in various subject areas. Direct
Instruction is conventional teaching; teachers are active and students practice more than
explore. The measure for principal leadership aligns with transformational leadership: sets
vision, motivates, offers learning opportunities, and personal support, and taps instructional
leadership in a specific way through support for standards and the state testing regimen. The
study also controls for teachers’ perceived pressure to conform to demands of the state
assessment policy.
OLS regression results indicate that principal support of standards is a consistent,
significant predictor of test-preparation and is significantly more important than feelings of
pressure due to the state tests. Using test preparation strategies encouraged modest changes
toward inquiry-oriented practice such as teaching concepts before computation, using
manipulatives, problem-solving, and writing about math. An important contextual fact is that
teachers generally perceived the state tests as relatively sound and not in conflict with curricular
intentions, as is often the case.
Leadership configuration
The last study in this section explores the configuration and activation of leadership roles in the
context of elementary schools’ adoption of comprehensive school reform (CSR) models
(Camburn, Rowan and Taylor 2003). The CSRs represented in the study included: America’s
Choice, Accelerated Schools Project, and Success for All. The study sought to understand the
extent to which CSRs prompt a greater number of formally designated leadership positions, how
various leadership functions are distributed across roles, and whether the patterns of function
and dispersal align in ways that bring successful programmatic change and instructional
improvement.
Those who study CSRs recognize the ways in which these programs scaffold leadership
development by, for example, providing additional opportunities for teachers to take on
leadership and using a variety of strategies to communicate expectations for collective work. The
models also have different ways of arranging joint work, building deep knowledge of curriculum
and teaching, and generally promoting improvement (Peurach, 2010). Notably, CSR programs
also place new demands on existing leaders, particularly on principals. Often instrumental in
bringing the program to the school, principals need to monitor the focus on goals, manage
human and fiscal resources, and coordinate with the district office in a way supportive of the
CSR program.

Key findings of a set of HLM models indicate that leadership in these elementary schools
is provided by a relatively small team of individuals (3-7 people), each of whom attends to a
specialized leadership function (e.g., facilitator, instructional coach, data analyst, family support
specialist). In contrast, principals take a generalist leadership position, performing a broader
range of functions than other leaders, and at higher levels. The interactions among principals
and teacher leaders create an apparent benefit to instructional quality through overlapping, or
redundant, leadership roles. CSRs also activate leadership through professional development,
thus, the extent of development was associated with high levels of instructional leadership.
These effects were strongest when programs prompted teacher leaders to reflect on their
developing practice. Effects for professional development surpassed the importance of clearly
defined role expectations, often regarded as a key leadership mechanism.
Summary
The seven quantitative studies reviewed here offer convincing evidence that principals are
central figures in school efforts to improve instructional quality. Even more important in
making instructional choices are the leadership efforts of teachers. When the energies of
principals and teacher leaders coalesce on the same targets through shared decision making and
in trusting environments, the promise for instructional improvement is great.
Teachers are better able to undertake new or non-routine teaching practices (e.g.
authentic instruction and standards-based instruction) when they have ample opportunity to
learn these new skills. Learning takes place in informal interaction, through participation and
conversation, just as it does in more formal professional development settings. Principals play a
key role in encouraging teacher involvement and learning through their transformational
influence and by creating conditions where peer influence can flourish. When instructional goals
are very focused, such as with paced instruction or test preparation, teachers’ decisions are quite
amenable to the direct influence of principals.
Conditions of support
The qualitative studies discussed in this section look more closely into the conditions under
which teacher leaders (e.g. coaches) contribute importantly to schools’ instructional programs.
Such conditions often depend on choices made by district leaders or school principals. These
studies do not specify measures of instructional practice in their analyses as did the studies
reviewed earlier; rather they explore overall levels of leadership defined as ‘instructional.’ By
virtue of sample selection, some studies offer at least some evidence that raising the level of
leadership will have commensurate benefits in raising the effectiveness of instruction.
Mangin (2007), adopting a social-constructivist perspective, provides an exploratory
study that highlights the importance of elementary principals in supporting the work of school-
based mathematics instructional coaches. Emerging in the context of greater instructional
accountability, teacher leader roles (e.g., coach) are intended to improve teaching practice.
School’s capacity to provide high quality, embedded professional development may be facilitated
by the creation of formal, school-based teacher leadership roles that provide ongoing and
context specific instructional guidance. In her study, teachers already in the schools generally
moved into these positions.

While these added formal roles are intended to relieve principals of some instructional
leadership responsibility, Mangin notes, the fact that teacher leaders often require the backing
of their principal to work effectively, may add, unintentionally, another component to the
principal’s work. The researcher identified principals’ level of knowledge of the teacher
leadership role as: a) familiarity with the role, b) knowledge of role enactment, and c) awareness
of the teacher leader’s long- and/or short-term goals. She measured principals’ level of
interaction with the teacher leader by a) frequency of interaction, and b) quality of interaction.
Highly supportive principals, those with both high levels of knowledge and interaction,
revealed two primary methods for supporting instructional coaches. First, they communicated
an expectation of instructional improvement, while simultaneously acknowledging the teacher
leader as a useful instructional resource. Second, they communicated an expectation that
teachers would interact with the teacher leaders. An additional finding is that district
communication about the role can enhance both principals’ knowledge of and interaction with
coaches. Improved conditions for coaching, Mangin suggests, result from involving principals in
teacher leadership role design, soliciting input in the hiring process, creating arenas for
interaction with their supervisors, clarifying the principal’s role in implementation, and offering
professional development related to teacher leadership. In schools where coaches were more
successful, administrators took deliberate steps to institutionalize structures and challenge
normative assumptions by clearly communicating expectations to teachers to tap the coaching
resource as a path to improvement.
Schools using CSR models are likely sites for learning how schools address instructional
needs. Datnow and Castellano (2001), investigated leadership in six Success for All (SFA)
schools two years into their reform. As conceived by SFA, the principal is the shaper of culture
and the manager of reform, while teacher facilitators are responsible for teacher learning and
implementation of the instructional program; both facilitators and principals carry
responsibility to interact with the external SFA design teams. SFA takes an aggressive approach
to changing teaching and learning for elementary literacy. The highly specified program comes
with comprehensive implementation guidelines and all materials. Teachers follow SFA lesson
plans with active pacing of activities for 90 minutes.
The researchers found that strong principal support is critical to implementation of the
program, though they also found variation in the press for fidelity according to a principal’s
leadership style. In all schools, SFA provided opportunity for principals to bring sharper focus to
teaching and learning. The reform increased principals’ activity in classrooms and their
knowledge about reading instruction, and more time spent with reading instruction increased
credibility of principals with teachers. Yet, responses show that principals relied on facilitators
to lead the reform. In these schools, principals often buffered teachers from comments of SFA
design/implementation teams, particularly when they were critical. In general, ambiguity about
roles was problematic to both principals and teacher facilitators. Also, SFA schools were often
out of synch with the district, which caused difficulty particularly around issues of human
resources.
Sykes, Printy and Bowers (2007) found a slightly different picture in a two year study of
a small urban district where six elementary schools had been using SFA for six years. The
leadership dynamics orchestrated through the SFA program were definitely present, with
facilitators taking the lead instructionally. Principals’ curricular expertise varied somewhat

across the schools, but all (even battle-scarred veterans) called attention to the opportunity for
their own learning afforded by the reform in their six schools.
Most interesting to the researchers was how the schools in this district worked with the
SFA design team – in short, as equal partners for improving their instructional program.
Admittedly, the first years of implementation were challenging for all school personnel, but after
the initial learning curve, teachers began making suggestions for changes and improvement
targeted at helping their own students achieve more. During the time of the study, several
schools were piloting a new SFA computer product. Researchers also observed a ‘learning
orientation’ on the part of facilitators and principals and efforts to share new insights across the
six district schools. In fact, district officials sought to expand a number of SFA routines and
structures to the middle school and, more modestly, to the high school. Toward the point of
instructional improvement, teachers with long tenures in the school noted that they now had
instructional repertoires that were successful with their urban students and that had enabled
them to nearly eliminate achievement gaps due to race or economic conditions.
The final study in this section looked at the ways a medium sized urban district used
coaches to establish teachers’ inquiry communities across schools (Wood 2007). A new
transformational superintendent inspired the beleaguered district to improve; her action plan
included fostering distributed leadership by building strong learning communities in every
school. Her interest was in building capacity – which she understood as embedding capacities in
teachers’ regular work. She made uncompromising demands of her faculty and staff, but she
also made clear efforts to institutionalize conditions that would enable the work. She wanted to
see ‘common intellectual standards of practice’ so that every school, every teacher, and every
student could improve.
The district’s professional development partner, the National School Reform Faculty
(NSRF), trained significant numbers of the district’s administrators and faculty as internal
coaches to facilitate communities in their district. The facilitation training gave the educators
the means to develop collaboration skills with others to bring about new cultures where
practitioner expertise could contribute to the creation of new knowledge. A primary method of
facilitation was using protocols, which, generally defined, are prescribed procedures that
support disciplined professional conversations. Within a short period of time, the protocols took
hold and began appearing in meetings other than learning communities throughout the district
(e.g. school faculty meetings).
The results that Wood reported point to ways in which the formal organization collides
with the social organization in a school. Although the initiative sought to establish learning
communities to mobilize practitioner expertise and build collective responsibility, most
participants did not claim a connection between their collaborative work and student learning.
Within the groups, more time was devoted to community-building efforts than to critical inquiry
aimed at improving teaching practice. Additionally, while the district made considerable
headway institutionalizing structural dimensions of the initiative, efforts to enhance teacher
efficacy appeared to be constrained by high-stakes accountability policies requiring compliance.
District leadership, though seeking a promising context for change, unwittingly caused
conditions that threatened to undermine the initiative.

Summary
Designated teacher leader roles appear to be a widely used component of programs designed to
improve the quality of instruction and are key components of CSR models. While instructional
coaches are intended to relieve principals of some instructional responsibility, they may
complicate the principal’s work.
Guidance for how to organize the work of instructional coaches maximizes their
effectiveness. Principals who have a high level of knowledge about the role and interact
frequently with coaches support them by acknowledging them as experts and by communicating
that teachers should use them as resources. CSR programs, such as SFA, not only lend guidance
for the coaching role and responsibility, they often ensure that principals have opportunities to
gain content knowledge and increase their own leadership capacity (Stein and Nelson 2003).
District decisions can inspire principals and teachers toward improvement, can institute
structures and routines that sustain and spread promising practices, and can just as easily
undermine the reform.
Alignment of the Formal Organization and the Social Organization
The final set of studies in this review employ network analysis to look at the interactions among
principals, instructional coaches, and teachers in formal and informal situations in schools
reforming the curricular and instructional program. The first three studies employ egocentric,
qualitative network analysis and the final two utilize a quantitative social network approach.
Network analysis helps to reveal the degree to which the formal organization and the social
organization of a school align.
In a large study of reforming school districts, Stein and Coburn (2008) illuminate the
ways in which leaders design conditions that support teachers’ opportunities to learn new ideas
and practices required to carry out ambitious reforms. The research focused on experiences in
two contrasting districts, both in the midst of rolling out new mathematics initiatives. In Greene
District, connections across disparate communities of practice (e.g., district mathematics
leaders, district administrative leaders, school level leaders) led to significant occasions for
principal and teacher learning and alignment with reform goals. In the Region Z district,
connections served to coordinate activities but did not result in meaningful learning for
principals or teachers.
The study required researchers to look into multiple overlapping communities of
practice. Based on careful analysis of interview data, Stein and Coburn identified teachers’,
instructional coaches’ and principals’ social networks and delineated the boundaries of each
network, the extensiveness of ties, and the congruence of members’ conversation with district
policy messages. They explored the formal systems put in place at multiple levels to support
reform and looked at the extent of alignment of those systems with the informal interactions
within the various communities of practice. An important conclusion of the research is that the
structure and nature of cross-boundary interaction throughout a district has important
consequences for principals’ and teachers’ opportunities to learn new knowledge and skills.
In the Region Z school, ideas about mathematics reform moved uni-directionally from
the district mathematics director, to the mathematics coach (who did not have mathematics
expertise), to the teacher. Conversations, which excluded the principal, were often superficial

and focused on compliance. In the Greene District school, mathematics ideas moved bi-
directionally, from the district mathematics director, to the coach (an experienced math
educator), to the teacher as well as up to the district from the classroom. The principal and
other administrators joined as partners in substantial, focused conversations about reform
ideas. A key idea is that occasions for principals to exert positive influence might or might not
occur based on how the district designs and enacts the reform.
The authors illuminate this point more clearly in a second article from the same study
(Coburn and Russell 2008) and show how district policies are mediated at the school level by
leadership decisions that influence the way that coaches are used. In Region Z principals had
little guidance about how to hire coaches, so principals made choices based on convenience
rather than on expertise. The Greene principals followed specified criteria for hiring and drew
coaches from the district’s existing teacher leaders in mathematics. In Region Z, multiple
initiatives were underway, with literacy activities taking priority over mathematics efforts.
Region Z principals had few chances to learn about the mathematics coaching initiative from
district mathematics leaders; as a result, they sometimes assigned coaches to work with students
rather than teachers and often pulled coaches away from coaching duties to take care of other
pressing needs. In Greene District schools, reform focused on mathematics, and principals had
ample opportunity to understand the design of the initiative from attending professional
development meetings with district leaders. As a result, principals knew coaches’ schedules and
could support their time with teachers, sometimes by buffering them from district requests.
Coburn and Russell also traced the depth and congruence of interactions around
mathematical ideas related to the reform. Principals influenced the depth and congruence of
mathematics interactions in several ways. First, they decided on the number of coaches hired
relative to the number of teachers. With a low ratio, coaches could work more intensely with
teachers, and thus, engage in conversations that had more depth. Second, principals often
worked against the reform by passing on messages to teachers that were incongruent with the
ideas of the mathematics curriculum (e.g., emphasizing test preparation strategies).
Spillane (2005) examines variation in leadership practice across school subjects in the
same elementary schools by looking particularly at the institutional structure (positions,
routines, administrative attention, resources, and norms) and the relational structure (social
networks). Spillane’s findings continue themes identified in the earlier sections, particularly the
indirect influence administrators exert on teachers’ instructional choices through structuring
opportunities for interaction.
In the eight study schools, institutional structures for leadership included roles, such as
subject coordinators and lead teachers, and routines such as leadership team meetings, grade
level meetings, curricular committee meetings, school improvement planning meetings, and so
on. On paper, that is, formally, the distribution of resources for different subjects (e.g., literacy,
mathematics, science) appeared similar. The ‘lived’ organization, however was much different;
as enacted, the leadership devoted to literacy was much greater relative to other subjects. A
comparison of the number of formal leaders and administrators involved in literacy routines
showed the priority given to that subject in all schools. The involvement of administrators –
signaling more support – was starkly different by subject. For instance, in one school, literacy
was the focus of 54% of formal leadership routines while mathematics was discussed in only 14%
of routines. Responsibility for leadership taken by regular classroom teachers also differed by

subject, with many teachers involved in major roles in literacy meetings, but no evidence of such
in mathematics meetings.
The schools’ informal cultures supported the variations described above. Both formal
and informal leaders saw literacy as more central to the curriculum since skills in literacy would
support learning in other subjects. Leaders also located the school as the location for primary
expertise in literacy when they turned outside the school to locate expertise in mathematics.
This last point was borne out by analysis of advice networks. Teachers more often sought out
colleagues for advice about literacy than about mathematics instruction. Interaction patterns in
the literacy networks were denser and the conversations about literacy were richer, more lively,
characterized by dialogue, and ventured into specifics about classroom teaching and student
learning than those around mathematics. Notably, school administrators did not figure
prominently in subject-specific advice networks.
Penuel and associates (Penuel et al. 2009; Penuel et al. 2010) also offer fine-grained
investigations of reform at the school level but use quantitative social network investigations
augmented with interview data. The researchers argue that social network analysis can help
leaders make decisions that will enhance the alignment of the formal organization of the school
with its informal structures: by describing faculty networks, by producing measures that explain
changes in teachers’ attitudes and behaviors, by demonstrating the extent to which efforts to
promote collaboration are successful, and by illuminating strategies for using formal and
informal reform leaders (coaches) to improve instruction.
One study sought to explain differences in outcomes for two elementary schools
implementing whole-school literacy reforms (Penuel et al. 2009). By all apparent indicators, the
schools did not differ significantly, had a similar focus for activities, and had similar resources.
Yet Crosswinds showed dramatic gains in students’ literacy performance measures while Glade
scores remained stagnant. Network and interview data pointed to significant differences
resulting from principals’ beliefs and practices in leading the reform.
At Crosswinds, the principal made key moves at the start of the reform to build solidarity
in the school, emphasizing that ‘we’ know better than ‘them’ (the district) how to address
student needs. The principal believed in teachers’ abilities to enact the reform by working
collaboratively to modify the adopted curricular materials based on demonstrated abilities of
students. She emphasized shared leadership responsibilities for meeting the targets of reform
and encouraged collective responsibility for improvement on grade level teams. This action
encouraged trust by reducing the vulnerability felt by individual teachers.
The Glade principal put faith in the curricular materials and outside experts who came to
the school to support the reform, not in her teachers. Additionally, teachers’ energies were
divided by multiple improvement initiatives ongoing in the school, each with a separate set of
experts, paperwork, and external accountability to funders. The principal expected teachers to
use instructional templates to record instructional decisions. While these were initially intended
to be collaborative products, they quickly devolved into individual compliance mechanisms that
teachers had to support with evidence of their students’ performance improvement. These
reduced social trust and increased teachers’ anxiety.
Principals at each school handled the coaching positions differently. At Crosswinds, the
principal chose an expert teacher to provide classroom assistance directly to teachers. She

modeled and encouraged an active culture of seeking out, selecting, and adapting resources
through discussions with colleagues. This literacy coach monitored the progress of reform,
oversaw data collection and enhanced the use of data, and facilitated the transfer of successful
practice from one classroom to the next.
The Glade principal chose to support two low-experience teachers with the funds
designated for the literacy coach. They served as substitutes to allow teachers to leave
classrooms for collaboration. However, principals often called them to other projects.
Ultimately, teachers lost trust with the process since their plans to collaborate were often
interrupted and because they had no access within their school to teachers with more expertise.
The other study followed two elementary schools undertaking whole school reforms for
shared decision making based on data in core subjects (Penuel et al. 2010). This report places
more emphasis on the quantitative findings of the social analysis method to reveal the ways
grade-level teams, coaches, and vertical teams designed to promote collaboration across grades
influenced actual patterns of interaction relative to more informal influences, such as collegial
bonds among faculty members and norms of trust and collective responsibility that had emerged
over time. Many of the findings repeat themes from the previous study.
At Dickerson, the formal structures to support teacher collaboration emerged from
informal patterns of interaction already extant in the school. The principal shared responsibility
for progress with the faculty. She chose formally designed leaders – the ‘go to’ people –
strategically from the existing faculty by identifying teachers with high expertise and informal
influence. The school’s normative culture of caring and support provided a basis for a more
defined collaborative culture. As a result, the formal organization aligned with the informal.
At La Plaza, the formal structures imposed as part of the reform were at odds with the
informal organization. A charter school that began with a mission for shared governance and
extensive teacher leadership, La Plaza also embraced high teacher autonomy. Declining test
scores on accountability tests brought increased pressure from the district and placed the
principal in the spotlight of external pressure. She reported feeling the tension between the need
to be a ‘strong’ leader on the one hand while acknowledging the tradition of teacher autonomy
on the other. The principal also reported that teachers were suspicious of her motives.
Sociograms identified polarization of expertise in data use, which served to fragment the reform
effort.
Summary
Interactions among educators throughout a district can differentially influence principals’ and
teachers’ access to new knowledge and skills. How learning opportunities at the school level
take shape are further dependent on decisions that principals make, often related to
implementation of coaching initiatives. At the school level, decisions about allocation of coaches,
among other resources, often have to do with subject. In elementary schools, where multiple
initiatives are likely, literacy is often prioritized.
Instructional improvement is more successful when the formal organization of reform
activities is aligned with the social organization of the school. Principals who put formal
structures in place to enhance teachers’ informal networks will strengthen collegial bonds,
enhance trust, and increase collective responsibility for learning, all of which are likely pathways
to improved collegial decisions about instruction.

Conclusion
The research reviewed here adds to the body of work in support of shared or distributed
approaches to school leadership. Contemporary expectations for student performance demand
that teachers acquire knowledge and new skills. Teacher learning is facilitated when
transformational principals motivate teachers to extend their selves in this way and when
principals remain engaged with teachers as they collaboratively make instructional decisions.
Formal teacher leaders are relatively new to the school landscape and bring new
challenges to the schoolhouse. These instructional coaches experience role ambiguity just as
principals do, while both parties negotiate their proper roles. The studies reviewed point over
and over to the lack of knowledge principals have about how to best utilize the resources coaches
offer. In some cases, district leaders took on the challenge of helping principals understand how
to use coaches to enhance the instructional capacities of the faculty; in many cases, district
leaders did not themselves know what it was that principals needed to know and left things to
chance. The cases reveal how important it is for principals to have deep content knowledge so
that they can influence instructional programs in positive ways, including knowing how to
support teachers’ learning (Stein and Nelson 2003).
CSR schools appear to have relatively high levels of guidance in these areas. Through
expectations for their principals, they create openings for principals to emphasize teaching and
learning, to spend time in classrooms and to engage in other activities related to the
instructional program, thereby increasing principals’ credibility. Even so, in CSR schools,
facilitators appear to lead the way toward instructional improvement.
Formal procedures and routines intended to support reform do not always succeed. The
network studies show the ways in which social norms predominate. To change and sustain
teachers’ practice requires constant and intentional effort by teachers and support from
principals. Many times, teachers retreat to superficial or perfunctory performance of reform
routines. That occurrence is a sign that the formal and informal organizations are misaligned.
Districts make important decisions about reform at multiple levels, and when these align, the
reform has a better chance of success.
The studies reinforce the centrality of the principal and show the multiple opportunities
principals have to mediate district polices at the school level. What principals say makes a
difference to teachers. When the district doesn’t intentionally address principal learning needs
about the intents and processes of reform, principals will sometimes pass on messages that
divert teachers from doing what they should be doing. With a better understanding of the
reform, principals are more likely to support it.
Network studies illuminate how different the social organization can be from the formal
organization put in place to structure changes to the instructional program. Principals who
understand the power of the social organization can design formal structures around teacher
networks. One idea is to place natural leaders who already have credibility due to their expertise
in formal teacher leader positions. Capitalizing on existing collegial bonds can increase trust
and collective responsibility for student learning.

Implications for policy and practice
Professional learning is a complex, sometimes ambiguous, endeavor when the target is
improved teaching to promote student performance gains. Policy makers need to understand
the pathways to improvement shown in the studies reviewed here. Principals do have something
to say about student learning, but it is primarily through their efforts with faculties to
collaboratively inquire into and make adjustments to their instructional practice. Further,
policymakers need to understand how critical it is that policy approaches recognize the power of
the social organization to enhance or undermine reform progress. Network analysis employed
early on in reform can offer evidence that reform initiatives will likely take hold because they
align with the social organization or that they will not.
For practitioners, these studies offer particular guidance to principals about the design of
their organizations to balance the formal requirements of reform with the social supports
offered through teachers’ collegial relations. The research demonstrates the power of teacher
community and reinforces that teacher isolation is anathema to quality instruction. Principals
should have a solid grounding in organizational theory to benefit from this knowledge.
Most of the research findings come from elementary schools. Stark differences are not
apparent in the high school data contained here, but the paucity of research in high schools calls
for a better understanding of how principal and teacher learning in the service of better teaching
and enhanced student performance unfolds at that level.
Susan Printy is an Associate Professor and Unit Coordinator in the Department of
Educational Administration at Michigan State University. She is a former high school
teacher and earned her PhD from the School of Educational Policy and Leadership at the
Ohio State University. Dr. Printy studies school improvement in large high schools and
provides professional development to at risk high schools as part of the Michigan State
System of Support to chronically underperforming schools.

Bass, B.M. and B. Avolio. 1993. Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In
Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions, ed. M.M. Chemers and R.
Ayman, 49-80. New York: Free Press.
Camburn, E., B. Rowan, and J. Taylor. 2003. Distributed leadership in schools: The case of
elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 25, no. 4: 347-373.
Coburn, C.E., J.L. Russell. 2008. District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, no. 3: 203-235.
Cohen, D., S. Raudenbush, and D. Ball. 2003. Resources, instruction, and research. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2, no. 5: 119-142.
Datnow, A. and M. Castellano. 2001. Managing and guiding school reform: Leadership in
Success For All schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, no. 2: 219-249.
Firestone, W., et al. 2002. The ambiguity of test preparation: A multi-method analysis in one
state. Teachers College Record,104, no. 7: 1485-1523.
Hallinger, P. and R. Heck. 1998. Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness:
1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9: 157-191.
Leithwood, K., et al. 2004. Review of research: How leadership influences student learning.
New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Lugg, C., et al. 2002. The contextual terrain facing educational leaders. In The Educational
Leadership Challenge: Redefining Leadership for the 21st Century, ed. J. Murphy, 20-41.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mangin, M. 2007. Facilitating elementary principals’ support for instructional teacher
leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, no. 3: 319-357.
Marks, H.M. and J. Nance. 2007. Contexts of accountability under systemic reform:
Implications for principal influence on instruction and supervision. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 43, no.1: 3-37.
Marks, H.M. and S.M. Printy. 2003. Principal leadership and school performance: Integrating
transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39,
no.3: 370-397.
Printy, S.M. 2008. Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice perspective.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, no. 2: 187-226.
Penuel, W.R. et al. 2009. Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions in a school as social
capital: A social network approach. Teachers College Record, 111, no. 1: 124-163.
Penuel, W.R. et al. 2010. The alignment of the informal and formal organizational supports for
reform: Implications for improving teaching in schools. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 46, no. 1: 57-95.
Peurach, D. 2010. Seeing complexity in public education: Problems, paradoxes, and Success
For All. New York: Oxford University Press.

Robinson, V., C. Lloyd, and K. Rowe. 2008. The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An
analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 44, no. 5: 635-674.
Rost, J. 1991. Leadership for the 21st Century. New York: Praeger.
Spillane, J. P. 2005. Primary school leadership practice: how the subject matters. School
Leadership and Management, 25, no. 4: 383-397.
Stein, M.K. and B.S. Nelson. 2003. Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 25, no. 4: 423-448.
Stein, M.K. and C.E. Coburn. 2008. Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two
urban school districts. American Journal of Education, 114, no. 3: 583-626.
Supovitz, J., P. Sirinides, and H. May. 2010. How principals and peers influence teaching and
learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, no.1: 31-56.
Sykes, G., S. Printy, and A. Bowers. 2007. We are “Big Red”: Community pride, leadership, and
Success for All in a working class community. Case study for the Hewlett Foundation. East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Wahlstrom, K. and K. Seashore Louis. 2008. How teachers experience principal leadership: The
roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44, no. 4: 458-495.
Witziers, B., R.J. Bosker, and M.L. Kruger. 2003. Educational leadership and student
achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly,
39, no.3: 398-425.
Wood, D. 2007. Teachers’ Learning Communities: Catalyst for Change or a New Infrastructure
for the Status Quo? Teachers College Record, 109, no. 3: 699-739

Printy principals influence_3

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Printy principals influence_3

Printy principals influence_3