Search results

In this chapter, we will examine the tensions of contemporary higher education. Theoretically informed by the relational approach, our argument makes three major moves. First, we examine the intersection of competing normative purposes for higher education, while simultaneously balancing the compliance and regulated nature of university programs for the professions. Second, through the specific example of educational leadership programs in Australia, we then explore how these tensions play out in practice. This has implications for the leadership, instructional choices, student experience, and relations with school systems of both faculty and universities. In our final move, we go beyond orthodox analytical dualism to offer a generative contribution for navigating the problems and possibilities of educational leadership under neoliberal conditions. By illuminating the underlying generative assumptions under contested conditions, we demonstrate how ideas of educational leadership are both constitutive of and emergent from our image of organizing. In doing so, we not only describe what is taking place but offer how things can be different.

The studies of school size undertaken by the Midwest Psychological Field Station at the University of Kansas indicated that while students in large schools were exposed to a larger number of school activities and the best of them achieved standards in many activities that were unequalled by students in the small schools, students in the small schools participated in more activities, their versatility and performance scores were consistently higher, they reported more and “better” satisfactions and displayed stronger motivation in all areas of school activity. Although there has long been evidence from industrial psychology that the larger and more bureaucratically efficient the organization the greater the degradation of the individual, this knowledge has had little influence upon schools, and the widespread concern for the organization man has not been accompanied by a similar concern for the organization child.

The article provides an overview of some of the problems that beset small primary schools within the UK. Some of the solutions are suggested but within the context of Local Management of Schools and the National Curriculum difficulties may become more apparent. The report was first written for internal use by local education authority officers/advisers and names of individual LEAs have therefore been omitted.

The special characteristics of small schools appear to set them apart from larger schools. In fact, small schools may be a discrete group in that their complexity may not be in direct ratio to their size. The special characteristics of small schools may include the absence of senior staff, administrative assistance on a part time basis only, conservatism and role conflict within the community, and lack of professional interaction. This paper aims to explore these issues by analysing data from a recent survey on Tasmania successful school principalship.

Results from a survey with the population of Tasmanian principals in schools of 200 or less students are compared with previous research findings from the limited literature in the area.

The study has confirmed that contextual demands result in role conflict for teaching principals, that principals of small rural schools are mobile, staying for short periods of time, and that a higher proportion are female. Statistically significant differences were found among small rural schools of 100 or fewer students and small rural and urban schools of between 101 and 200 students. These differences were best explained by combination of the “double load phenomenon” and the increasingly mandated requirements for the implementation of growing amounts of Department of Education policy, rather than rurality or socio‐economic status.

Given the combination of the expected large turnover in the principalship in Australian schools over the next five to ten years, the high proportion of small schools (at least one‐quarter) and the unlikely change to the traditional career path wherein, for many, becoming a principal of a small school is the initial step progressively moving to large schools, the findings add weight to the need for greater attention to be paid to small school principalship.

The study adds to the very limited research into successful school principalship in small schools.

Do principals from small, medium, and large school districts have the same level of decision making power? Do teachers from small, medium, and large school districts have the same level of decision making power? This chapter tried to address these questions by analyzing 2011–2012 nationally representative School and Staffing Survey data. We found that comparing with large districts, teachers and principals at small and medium school districts perceived higher levels of decision making power in most school policy areas. We also found that although there were statistically significant differences among the three district sizes, practically significant differences existed in establishing curriculum for teachers and in establishing curriculum and deciding budget for principals. Implications of the findings were discussed.

Are the effects of school size transmitted in measurable quantities to the personalities of pupils? Having argued that the learning environments of small and large schools could differ in predictable ways, the authors examined the effects of these differences on the personality development of pupils. Multiple regression analysis revealed the effects of school size to be reflected in only two of eight personality outcomes — sense of cohesion and concern for persons. Two variables — attitude towards school and fear of failure — are regarded as “not proven” and four variables — functional identity, sense of internal control over events, breadth of role constructs, and cognitive complexity showed no evidence of the effects of school size.

This paper proceeds from the basis that leadership can only be understood in context and by viewing it from the inside. In particular, it argues that the contextual complexity of small school leadership warrants attention from researchers, policy makers and system administrators and describes the nature of this complexity as depicted in the literature. It then reports a study being conducted in two states of Australia which examines the ways novice principals of small schools located in rural and remote areas make sense of, and deal with, the contextual complexity of their work. Finally, the paper discusses the implications of the study for promoting understanding of small school leadership and for developing authentic means of professional learning.

This chapter analyzes 2011 survey data from a sample of Texas principals who were asked about their perceptions of their working conditions such as: support and facilities; salary; resources; autonomy to make decisions; testing and accountability pressures; and relationships with supervisors. Respondents were also asked about their intentions to stay or leave their particular school. Researchers and policymakers agree effective and stable school leadership is critical to school improvement efforts, but we know little about how various working conditions impact principal effectiveness and turnover. This work is important because in-depth knowledge of the causes of principal turnover in general and how principal working conditions impact turnover in particular is a pre-requisite to creating policies and support mechanisms to support principals in small and mid-sized districts.

In recent years the credo that small schools are superior to large schools has gained wide, and often uncritical support. The purpose of this paper is to indicate serious shortcomings in the case for small secondary schools as presented in the past several years in South Australia. Moreover, in the light of these shortcomings, the need for a reappraisal of the concept of school is emphasized, particularly in view of the fact that an unwarranted acceptance of the argument in favour of small secondary schools could exert a deleterious effect on secondary school provision.

This is the second part of a study on high school consolidation undertaken by Professor W. J. Campbell when he was a Visiting Professor of Psychology at the University of Kansas. The first part, which concerns the effects of consolidation upon school experiences, is published in Big School—Small School, edited by R. G. Barker and P. Gump (Stanford University Press, 1964).