Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol13.Issue2.1999:
The importance of department heads in the
development of teacher support for school vision
Mahmood Abolghasemi
Researcher, Office of Graduate Studies, Ministry of Culture and Higher Education,
Iran
John McCormick
Co-ordinator of Educational Administration, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia
Robert Conners
Honorary Visiting Fellow, School of Education Studies, Sydney, Australia
Keywords
Australia, Leadership,
Organizational structure, Schools,
Vision
Introduction
The role of leader in defining and articulating a vision for organisations has been
Abstract
addressed by many researchers (Bass, 1990;
Investigates how high school
Bennis, 1984; Conger, 1990; Fritz, 1986; Nanus,
department heads may play a role
in the alignment of teachers with a 1992). In educational contexts, in particular,
the role of principal in the development and
principal's vision for the school.
A survey study based on a
implementation of school vision has been
theoretical position of the high
given considerable attention (Greenfield
school as a loosely-coupled
et al., 1992; Leithwood and Jantzi, 1990;
system consisting of departments
Sashkin, 1993; Staessens and Vanderberghe,
with distinct subcultures and
department heads who are
1994; Stalhammar, 1994; Starratt, 1993). Howinfluential leaders is reported. As
ever, the role of middle manager in schools
expected, principal components
with regard to school vision has not received
and multiple regression analyses
comparable attention. Notwithstanding
suggest that behaviours of the
this, it can be argued that subject department
principal which emphasise and
reinforce the school vision, predict heads, as well as principals, can be key
the extent to which teachers
players in the implementation of school
support the principal's vision.
vision. This paper will explore the role
However, the congruence of
played by department heads in the
department heads and the principal, in terms of school vision, is a implementation of school vision.
much stronger predictor of
teachers' support for the vision. To
a lesser extent, stronger structural coupling between departments
also contributes to teachers'
support of the school vision.
This study was funded by
the Ministry of Culture and
Higher Education, the
Islamic Republic of Iran
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/2 [1999] 80±86
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 80 ]
Theoretical background
Vision can be defined as an image of a
desirable future (Manasse, 1986; Starratt,
1993) and is considered an essential component of school culture (Staessens and Vanderberghe, 1994). Lambert (1988) pointed out
that vision is a starting point for all activities
in a school. All work should result from the
vision that determines the purpose of the
school. Blendinger and Jones (1989) stated
that :
Vision imbues the culture of a school and
school district with a purpose of what is
important and valuable. Vision provides
direction. It is a mental picture of what
tomorrow can look like ± an image of the
future (p. 23).
Johnstone (1987) suggested that school vision
should emerge from the set of values of the
school and provide school members with
motivation and enthusiasm.
Effective principals were found by Blumberg and Greenfield (1987) to be capable of
articulating a vision in their schools and
encouraging school members to internalise
and incorporate the vision in their activities.
Sashkin (1993) stated that effective schools
must have effective principals who create
and translate into action a vision for the
school. Such principals are required to have
a vision, a cultural ideal for schools, and all
school members should share that vision
which guides all programs and activities
within the school. Sashkin(1993) further
suggested three major elements of visionary
leadership: creating a vision, developing an
organisational philosophy that incorporates
that vision and serves as a guide of actions
and programs, and actions of the leader that
lend support to that vision.
Principals are not the only leaders in
schools. In particular, in high schools,
department heads are expected to fulfil
leadership functions and influence the cultures of their schools. Arguably, the actions
of these people may affect the implementation of the principal's vision for the school.
Departments may develop subcultures which
lead them to a vision different from that of
the principal. Therefore, the school may be
subject to competing and conflicting subcultures rather than being directed toward a
unanimously accepted vision (Maxwell and
Thomas, 1991). To explore the influence of
subleaders and subcultures on school vision
in high schools, different levels of leadership
should be taken into account. However,
leadership is not the only salient variable
when considering school vision. Organisational structure is likely to play an important
part. Schools, particularly secondary schools,
have been conceptualised as loosely coupled
systems (Ball, 1987; Barth, 1988; Bidwell, 1965;
Firestone and Herriott, 1982; Horne, 1992).
Loose coupling may affect a principal's
capacity to develop and communicate a
vision for the school. Weick (1976) stressed
Mahmood Abolghasemi,
John McCormick and
Robert Conners
The importance of department
heads in the development of
teacher support for school
vision
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/2 [1999] 80±86
that loose coupling is not necessarily a
weakness for such organisations. Rather, it
may provide some advantages that allow
organisations to deal with variations in their
conditions. Moreover, teachers, like other
professionals, work with a degree of
autonomy which is consistent with a
loosely coupled organisational structure
(MacKinnon and Brown, 1994). It can be
argued that such conditions have led many
teachers to work in isolation and be limited
to brief, informal, and fragmented interactions with their colleagues and principals.
Teachers' activities are student-centred and
they tend to focus their attention on the
classroom (Smylie and Brownlee-Conyers,
1992).
Siskin (1991) stated that ``... high schools
are fundamentally different structures from
elementary schools, and one key anatomical
difference is their departmentalised differentiation of specialised teachers'' (p. 136). She
further argued that departments influence
teachers and teaching in high schools. Her
research findings indicated that there was a
high correlation between effective schools
and the strength of their departments.
Results of Siskin's (1991) study also suggest
that departments are meaningful subunits
that play a significant role in ``... the culture
and authority of secondary schools'' (p. 139).
Moreover, departments may have different
cultures, providing particular environments
that reinforce certain kinds of behaviour,
lead to different departmental policies and
practices and result in different responses to
external policies; department heads perform
as middle managers in secondary schools and
exercise power over their members. Siskin
(1991) posited that:
1 ``Departments are fundamental boundaries forming distinct subcultures within
the school''.
2 ``They provide links to and participation
in the wider community and culture of the
respective disciplines''.
3 ``They serve as potent administrative
units'' (p. 154).
Moreover, Wilson and Corcoran (1988), in
their study of effective high schools, came to
the conclusion that department heads and
members play essential leadership roles in
effective high schools. Hence, it can be
argued that the loosely-coupled structure of
high schools allows department heads to
make their own choices as professionals in
the school, in a relatively autonomous workplace, and influence the development and
implementation of a vision for the school.
The study reported here was carried out to
explore how department heads and school
organisational structure are related to the
principal's vision for the school.
Research questions
This research addresses two research
questions:
1 Is the sharing by teachers of the
principal's vision for the school positively
associated with the extent to which
department heads shared the principal's
vision?
2 Are the department heads' and teachers'
perceptions of the principal's vision for
the school related to school organisational
structure?
Methodology
The sample
Department heads and teachers of English,
mathematics, science, and social sciences
departments of 28 high schools, randomly
selected from a region of the Department of
School Education, in Sydney, Australia participated in the study. All schools and
respondents took part anonymously in the
study. Codes rather than names were used
for data analysis purposes. Of a total of 696
questionnaires which were distributed to
high schools, 273 completed questionnaires
were returned, indicating a total return of
39.2 per cent. It should be noted that in the
period of data gathering, schools were
involved in state-wide industrial unrest,
including strikes. It is possible that this
affected the willingness of principals and
teachers to participate, and consequently,
depressed the return rate.
Individually packaged questionnaires were
mailed to those principals who agreed to
participate in the study. Principals were
requested to distribute questionnaires to the
English, mathematics, science, and social
sciences departments. Each package included
a copy of the questionnaire, a reply-paid
envelope and an explanatory letter to
respondents. The explanatory letter
explained the purpose of the study, as well as
instructions for returning completed
questionnaires using a self-addressed,
stamped envelope. Respondents were
guaranteed that all information would be
treated with the strictest confidentiality.
The sample consisted of 59 department
heads, and 214 teachers. The numbers of male
and female classroom teachers were nearly
equal, whereas 65 per cent of department
heads were male. Approximately 60 per cent
of the department heads had less than ten
years teaching experience at their present
school, and 75 per cent had held the position
[ 81 ]
Mahmood Abolghasemi,
John McCormick and
Robert Conners
The importance of department
heads in the development of
teacher support for school
vision
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/2 [1999] 80±86
for less than ten years. Of the teachers,
approximately 65 per cent had more than ten
years' teaching experience in total, whereas
approximately 78 per cent had less than ten
years experience at their present schools.
The number of respondents from the social
sciences departments was slightly greater
than other departments.
Instrument
Data were gathered by means of a questionnaire which consisted of two main parts. The
first contained 13 items related to the
principal's visionary behaviour which were
concerned with articulating, communicating
and implementing a vision for the school.
Some of these items were adapted and
adopted from the ``Leadership practices inventory'' (Kouzes and Posner, 1988). The
second part consisted of 19 items concerned
with departments' subcultures, interdepartmental relationships, and the extent of
agreement, by teachers and department
heads, with the principal's vision.
The survey instrument was piloted with a
small sample of seven randomly-selected
high schools in Sydney, Australia. After
minor modifications, the instrument was
finalised for use in the main study. All
statements were scored on a five-point
Likert-type scale, ranging from ``strongly
disagree'' to ``strongly agree''.
Two versions of the instrument were used
in the study for the two groups of respondents (department heads and teachers) and
only differed slightly in wording. That is,
some statements in the teacher's version
were written using the third person, whereas
the matching statements in the department
head's version were written using the first
person.
Analysis and discussion
It should be noted that the prime purpose of
this study was not to report the evaluations
of teachers and head teachers of individual
schools and principals, but to pool these
evaluations to get a sense of the larger
picture. Therefore, analyses were carried out
at the teacher level.
Because of the exploratory nature of the
study, and to parsimoniously identify simple
structure, principal components analysis
with varimax rotation was used to analyse
each of the ``principal's visionary behaviour''
and ``school department'' sets of items.
All items of the ``principal's visionary
behaviour'' set loaded on a single factor
which is reported in Table I. This factor
had an eigenvalue of 9.4 and accounted for
[ 82 ]
72.6 per cent of the variance and was named
principal's visionary behaviour. This scale
had a high reliability alpha of 0.97. This
indicated that the measure was unidimensional, which was consistent with findings in
the pilot study. Principal's visionary behaviour is concerned with principals' practices
which are aimed at identifying new opportunities for the school, and developing,
articulating, and inspiring teachers with a
vision of the future. It also deals with a
leader's behaviours which set an example for
school members to follow that is consistent
with the values which the principal espouses.
Also, it relates to the efforts of principals to
promote co-operation among teachers toward
a common goal and to demonstrate the
principal's expectations for excellence and
quality.
Responses to ``school department'' items
were submitted to principal components
analysis with varimax rotation and four
factors were isolated using extraction
criteria eigenvalue greater than one, scree
test and interpretability. The factors were
named:
1 head teacher-principal congruence;
2 department subculture;
3 teacher-principal congruence; and
4 structural coupling,
and had eigenvalues 7.6, 2.4, 1.9, 1.2,
accounting for 40.0 per cent, 12.7 per cent, 10.3
per cent, and 6.1 per cent of the variance,
respectively. The total percentage of variance
explained by these four factors was approximately 69 per cent. The factor groupings are
shown in Table II. Reliability measures of the
four subscales are satisfactory, with alphas
ranging from 0.73 to 0.94.
Head teacher-principal congruence refers
to the extent to which department heads
share and support the principal's vision for
the school and encourage their department
members to embrace the principal's vision.
Department subculture refers basically to the
department's culture including values, goals,
practical strategies for pursuing the shared
goals, and the degree of adherence, cohesion,
and co-operation between staff within the
department. Teacher-principal congruence is
concerned with the extent to which teachers
share the principal's vision and encourage
and co-operate with their colleagues to make
it happen. Structural coupling refers to the
nature of coupling and the strength of
linkages in the school organisation, the
degree of interdepartmental co-operation,
and the extent of adherence of different
departments to the overall goals of the school,
compared to their attachment to the department's goals and values.
Mahmood Abolghasemi,
John McCormick and
Robert Conners
The importance of department
heads in the development of
teacher support for school
vision
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/2 [1999] 80±86
Table I
Factor loadings of principal's visionary behaviour items
Item
The principal
Provides teachers with practical implications of his/her vision for the school
Makes efforts to unify the directions of departments/faculties toward his/her
vision for the school
Encourages all departments/faculties to share his/her vision for the school
Makes efforts to ensure that school programmes are consistent with his/her vision
of the school
Provides teachers with opportunities to realise his/her vision for the school
Communicates school goals clearly to the teachers
Makes outstanding efforts to promote his/her vision for the school
Describes the kind of future he/she would like us to create together
Involves departments/facilities in co-operative work to achieve school goals
Makes certain that school goals are taken into account by departments/faculties
in their planning
Shows others how their future educational interests can be realised by supporting
his/her vision for the school
Is consistent in practising the values he/she espouses
Has a clearly articulated vision for the school
Loading
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.87
0.86
0.86
0.85
0.84
0.83
0.83
0.81
0.80
Table II
Factor groupings of school department items
Item
Head teacher-principal congruence
The head of my department/faculty attempts to get the department/faculty
members to support the principal's vision for the school
The head of my department/faculty directs the activities of the department/faculty
toward the principal's vision for the school
The head of my department/faculty feels committed to the principal's vision for the
school
The head of my department/faculty translates the principal's vision for the school
into practice
The head of my department/faculty takes every opportunity to communicate the
principal's vision for the school
The head of my department/faculty shares the principal's vision for the school
Loading
0.85
0.84
0.83
0.83
0.78
0.77
Department subculture
There is a set of shared norms and standards concerning teaching strategies in
my department/faculty
There is co-operation among the staff in my department/faculty
Members of my department/faculty are committed to the goals of the department/
faculty
We are happy with the way we do things in our department/faculty
Members of my department/faculty have the same set of educational values
0.80
0.76
0.69
Teacher-principal congruence
I have positive attitudes toward the principal's vision for the school
I support the principal's vision for the school
I encourage my colleagues to support the principal's vision for the school
0.79
0.76
0.67
Structural coupling
Different departments/faculties in the school have different values
Departments/faculties in the school tend to work in isolation from each other
My department/faculty puts greater emphasis on its own goals compared to those
of the school
The various departments/faculties in the school have few goals in common
My department/faculty places its own values before those of the school
0.83
0.81
0.78
0.67
0.66
0.66
0.55
[ 83 ]
Mahmood Abolghasemi,
John McCormick and
Robert Conners
The importance of department
heads in the development of
teacher support for school
vision
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/2 [1999] 80±86
Given the exploratory nature of the study,
the unweighted means of raw aggregated
item scores were used to calculate factor
scores for regression analysis (Hair et al.,
1995). Teacher-principal congruence was
treated as the dependent (criterion) variable,
and principal's visionary behaviour, head
teacher-principal congruence, department
subculture, and structural coupling were
entered stepwise as independent variables.
Table III shows that three independent
variables were entered into the regression
equation:
1 head teacher-principal congruence was
the best predictor and accounted for 48 per
cent of the variance;
2 principal's visionary behaviour; and
3 structural coupling accounted for another
13 per cent and 1 per cent of variance,
respectively.
Multicollinearity was not a problem.
To validate the regression model, the
sample was subdivided into two random
subsamples with almost equal sizes. Slight
differences in subsample sizes resulted from
missing data which excluded some cases
from analysis. The regression model for one
subsample was the same as for the full
sample with structural coupling accounting
for 2 per cent of variance. However, for the
other subsample, the first two variables were
the same, but structural coupling was not a
significant predictor. Clearly, structural
coupling is a marginal predictor. However, as
the model based on the full sample is likely to
be more stable (Kerlinger and Pedhazur,
1973) it was decided that it should be included
in the final model.
The regression model may be interpreted
in light of the stated research questions.
First, in addressing research question one, it
can be noted that the best predictor of
teachers' support for the principal's vision is
the extent to which the head teacher supports, shares and communicates the
principal's vision, and that it accounts for
nearly half the variance. This suggests that
department heads in this study played a
pivotal role in the effective building and
communication of school vision. As might be
expected, inclusion of principal's visionary
behaviour in the regression model suggests
that principals are able to directly influence
teachers and align them with the school
vision. However, the latter is arguably not as
powerful a means of aligning teachers with
the school vision as doing so by means of first
aligning department heads. Finally, a tentative answer to the second research question
has been forthcoming with the inclusion of
structural coupling in the regression model.
Thus, it appears that the extent to which
school departments are isolated, and pursue
different goals, is related in a minor way to
the congruence of teacher and principal
school vision. However, this result is not
conclusive and further research is required
to probe this issue.
Conclusions
This study highlighted the importance of the
role of department heads with regard to
school vision and has suggested that department heads play a mediating role in the
alignment of teachers with the principal's
vision for a school. This finding is consistent
with other research (Barnett, 1984; Busher,
1988; Dunham, 1978; Early and FletcherCampbell, 1989) which broadly explored the
role of department head in schools. It has
been argued that department heads are key
personnel in high schools (Dunham, 1978)
and may be considered ``... the driving force
behind any school'' (Early and FletcherCampbell, 1989, p. 102). Barnett (1984) attributed the power of department heads to their
critical position, described as the ``neck of
the hourglass'' (p. 53), in the flow of information and argued that department heads,
being in the middle position in the hierarchy,
may obtain and distribute information
throughout the school. Also, they may provide information from the middle up by
communicating departmental needs and
concerns to principals. Whatever the sources
of the power of department heads, consistent
with other relevant studies in this area the
present study has shown the importance of
Table III
Multiple regression of teacher-principal congruence with department subculture factors
Variable
One
Two
Three
Head teacher-principal congruence
Principal's visionary behaviour
Structural coupling
Notes:
[ 84 ]
R2
Step
**
p 5 0.01;
***
p 5 0.001
0.48
0.61
0.62
R2
change
0.13
0.01
F change
Beta in
248.53***
86.51***
6.20**
0.69
0.43
0.11
Mahmood Abolghasemi,
John McCormick and
Robert Conners
The importance of department
heads in the development of
teacher support for school
vision
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/2 [1999] 80±86
the department heads specifically in relation
to the principal's vision.
Further, the results support the more
predictable view that principals who demonstrate strong visionary behaviours, receive
more support from teachers toward their
vision for the school. This is consistent with
the findings of Greenfield et al. (1992) which
suggested that teachers who perceived
principals to be visionary more probably
shared the vision.
Furthermore, although evidence is inconclusive, in terms of structural coupling it can
be concluded that strength of linkages
between departments appear to be associated
with greater alignment of staff with the
principal's vision. The stronger the coupling,
the more co-operation between departments
and the greater the attachment and adherence to the shared values and goals of the
school. The results are consistent with the
findings of other researchers (Harris et al.,
1995; Rowan et al., 1991, Siskin, 1991;
Stodolsky, 1993; Turner, 1996) that suggest
departments are influential and meaningful
subunits and they influence the assumptions
and perceptions of teachers in relation to
educational goals and school vision.
Finally, the results of this study have
practical implications for principals and
school middle managers. Principals should
seek to harmonise departments' subcultures
with the school culture and school vision. In
doing this, they need to appreciate the
essential influence which department heads
may have on teachers' attitudes. In the first
instance, principals would be advised to
attempt to develop a sense of solidarity with
the middle managers, by facilitating interdepartmental co-operation, making the communication of a unified school vision more
likely. For their part, department heads
should look beyond narrow departmental
interests and appreciate their responsibility
to assist in the development of a learning
environment oriented to the development
and implementation of a vision for the
school.
References
Ball, S.J. (1987), The Micropolitics of the School,
Methuen, London.
Barnett, B.G. (1984), ``Subordinate teacher power
in school organisations'', Sociology of
Education, Vol. 57, January, pp. 43-55.
Barth, R.S. (1988), ``Principals, teachers, and
school leadership'', Phi Delta Kappa, Vol. 69
No. 9, pp. 639-42.
Bass, B.M. (1990), ``From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the
vision'', Organizational Dynamics, Winter,
pp. 19-31.
Bennis, W. (1984), ``Transformative power and
leadership'', in Sergiovanni, T. and Corbally,
J. (Eds.) Leadership and Organizational
Culture, University of Illinios Press, Urbana,
IL, pp. 64-71.
Bidwell, C.E. (1965), ``The school as a formal
organisation'', in March, J.G. (Ed.) Handbook
of Organizations, Rand-McNally, Chicago, IL,
pp. 972-1022.
Blendinger, J. and Jones, L.T. (1989), ``Start with
culture to improve your schools'', The School
Administrator, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 22-5.
Blumberg, A. and Greenfield, W.D. (1987), The
Effective Principal: Perspectives on School
Leadership, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Busher, H. (1988), ``Reducing role overload for a
head of department: a rationale for fostering
staff development'', School Organization,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 99-103.
Conger, J.A. (1990), ``The dark side of leadership'',
Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, pp. 44-55.
Dunham, J. (1978), ``Change and stress in the head
of department's role'', Educational Research,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 44-7.
Early, P. and Fletcher-Campbell, F. (1989),
``Managing school departments and faculties:
towards better practice'', Educational
Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 98-112.
Firestone, W.A. and Herriott, R.E. (1982), ``Two
images of schools as organisations: an explication and illustrative empirical test'',
Educational Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 39-59.
Fritz, R. (1986), ``The leader as creator'', in
Adams, J.D. (Ed.) Transforming Leadership:
from Vision to Results, Miles River Press,
Alexandria, VA, pp. 159-82.
Greenfield, W., Licata, J.W. and Johnson, B.L.
(1992), ``Towards measurement of school
vision'', Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 65-76.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and
Black, W.C. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis
with Readings (4th ed.), Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Harris, A, Jamison, I. and Russ, J. (1995), ``A
study of effective departments in secondary
schools'', School Organization, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 283-99.
Horne, S. (1992), ``Organization and change within
educational systems: some implications of a
loose-coupling model'', Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 88-98.
Johnstone, J.H. (1987), ``Values, cultures, and the
effective school'', NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 71
No. 497, pp.79-88.
Kerlinger, F.N. and Pedhazur, E.J. (1973), Multiple
Regression in Behavioral Research, Holt,
Rinehart and Wilson, New York, NY.
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1988), Leadership
Practices Inventory, Kouzes Posner International Inc., CA.
[ 85 ]
Mahmood Abolghasemi,
John McCormick and
Robert Conners
The importance of department
heads in the development of
teacher support for school
vision
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/2 [1999] 80±86
[ 86 ]
Lambert, L.G. (1988), ``Building school culture: an
open letter to principals'', NASSP Bulletin,
Vol. 72 No. 506, pp. 54-62.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1990), ``Transformational leadership: how principals can help
reform school cultures'', School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, Vol. 1 No. 4,
pp. 249-80.
MacKinnon, J.D. and Brown, M.E. (1994),
``Inclusion in secondary schools: an analysis
of school structure based on teachers' images
of change'', Educational Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 126-52.
Manasse, A.L. (1986), ``Vision and leadership:
paying attention to intention'', Peabody
Journal of Education, Vol. 63 No.1, pp. 150-73.
Maxwell, T.W. and Thomas, A.R. (1991), ``School
climate and school culture'', Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 29 No, 2,
pp. 72-82.
Nanus, B. (1992), Visionary Leadership, JosseyBass, San Francisco CA.
Rowan, B., Raudenbush, S.W. and Kang, S.J.
(1991), ``Organisational design in high
schools: a multilevel analysis'', American
Journal of Education, Vol. 99, No. 2, pp. 238-66.
Sashkin, M. (1993), ``The visionary principal:
school leadership for the next century'', in
Sashkin, M. and Walberg, H.J. (Eds), Educational Leadership and School Culture,
McCutchan, Berkeley, CA, pp. 75-85.
Siskin, L.S. (1991), ``Departments as different
worlds: subject subcultures in secondary
schools'', Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 134-60.
Smylie, M.A. and Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1992),
``Teacher leaders and their principals: exploring the development of new working
relationships'', Educational Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 150-84.
Staessens, K. and Vandenberghe, R. (1994),
``Vision as a core component in school
culture'', Journal of Curriculum Studies,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 187-200.
Stalhammar, B. (1994), ``Goal-oriented leadership
in Swedish schools'', Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 14-25.
Starratt, R.J. (1993), ``Leadership and vision'', in
Starratt, R.J., Transforming Life in Schools:
Conversations About Leadership and School
Renewal, Australian Council for Educational
Administration, Hawthorne, Victoria,
pp. 41-7.
Stodolsky, S.S. (1993), ``A framework for subject
matter comparisons in high schools'', Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 333-46.
Turner, C.K. (1996), ``The roles and tasks of a
subject head of department in secondary
schools in England and Wales: a neglected
area of research?'', School Organization,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 203-17.
Weick, K.E. (1976), ``Educational organizations as
loosely coupled systems'', Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Wilson, B. and Corcoran, T. (1988), Successful
Secondary Schools, Falmer Press, New York,
NY.
development of teacher support for school vision
Mahmood Abolghasemi
Researcher, Office of Graduate Studies, Ministry of Culture and Higher Education,
Iran
John McCormick
Co-ordinator of Educational Administration, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia
Robert Conners
Honorary Visiting Fellow, School of Education Studies, Sydney, Australia
Keywords
Australia, Leadership,
Organizational structure, Schools,
Vision
Introduction
The role of leader in defining and articulating a vision for organisations has been
Abstract
addressed by many researchers (Bass, 1990;
Investigates how high school
Bennis, 1984; Conger, 1990; Fritz, 1986; Nanus,
department heads may play a role
in the alignment of teachers with a 1992). In educational contexts, in particular,
the role of principal in the development and
principal's vision for the school.
A survey study based on a
implementation of school vision has been
theoretical position of the high
given considerable attention (Greenfield
school as a loosely-coupled
et al., 1992; Leithwood and Jantzi, 1990;
system consisting of departments
Sashkin, 1993; Staessens and Vanderberghe,
with distinct subcultures and
department heads who are
1994; Stalhammar, 1994; Starratt, 1993). Howinfluential leaders is reported. As
ever, the role of middle manager in schools
expected, principal components
with regard to school vision has not received
and multiple regression analyses
comparable attention. Notwithstanding
suggest that behaviours of the
this, it can be argued that subject department
principal which emphasise and
reinforce the school vision, predict heads, as well as principals, can be key
the extent to which teachers
players in the implementation of school
support the principal's vision.
vision. This paper will explore the role
However, the congruence of
played by department heads in the
department heads and the principal, in terms of school vision, is a implementation of school vision.
much stronger predictor of
teachers' support for the vision. To
a lesser extent, stronger structural coupling between departments
also contributes to teachers'
support of the school vision.
This study was funded by
the Ministry of Culture and
Higher Education, the
Islamic Republic of Iran
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/2 [1999] 80±86
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 80 ]
Theoretical background
Vision can be defined as an image of a
desirable future (Manasse, 1986; Starratt,
1993) and is considered an essential component of school culture (Staessens and Vanderberghe, 1994). Lambert (1988) pointed out
that vision is a starting point for all activities
in a school. All work should result from the
vision that determines the purpose of the
school. Blendinger and Jones (1989) stated
that :
Vision imbues the culture of a school and
school district with a purpose of what is
important and valuable. Vision provides
direction. It is a mental picture of what
tomorrow can look like ± an image of the
future (p. 23).
Johnstone (1987) suggested that school vision
should emerge from the set of values of the
school and provide school members with
motivation and enthusiasm.
Effective principals were found by Blumberg and Greenfield (1987) to be capable of
articulating a vision in their schools and
encouraging school members to internalise
and incorporate the vision in their activities.
Sashkin (1993) stated that effective schools
must have effective principals who create
and translate into action a vision for the
school. Such principals are required to have
a vision, a cultural ideal for schools, and all
school members should share that vision
which guides all programs and activities
within the school. Sashkin(1993) further
suggested three major elements of visionary
leadership: creating a vision, developing an
organisational philosophy that incorporates
that vision and serves as a guide of actions
and programs, and actions of the leader that
lend support to that vision.
Principals are not the only leaders in
schools. In particular, in high schools,
department heads are expected to fulfil
leadership functions and influence the cultures of their schools. Arguably, the actions
of these people may affect the implementation of the principal's vision for the school.
Departments may develop subcultures which
lead them to a vision different from that of
the principal. Therefore, the school may be
subject to competing and conflicting subcultures rather than being directed toward a
unanimously accepted vision (Maxwell and
Thomas, 1991). To explore the influence of
subleaders and subcultures on school vision
in high schools, different levels of leadership
should be taken into account. However,
leadership is not the only salient variable
when considering school vision. Organisational structure is likely to play an important
part. Schools, particularly secondary schools,
have been conceptualised as loosely coupled
systems (Ball, 1987; Barth, 1988; Bidwell, 1965;
Firestone and Herriott, 1982; Horne, 1992).
Loose coupling may affect a principal's
capacity to develop and communicate a
vision for the school. Weick (1976) stressed
Mahmood Abolghasemi,
John McCormick and
Robert Conners
The importance of department
heads in the development of
teacher support for school
vision
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/2 [1999] 80±86
that loose coupling is not necessarily a
weakness for such organisations. Rather, it
may provide some advantages that allow
organisations to deal with variations in their
conditions. Moreover, teachers, like other
professionals, work with a degree of
autonomy which is consistent with a
loosely coupled organisational structure
(MacKinnon and Brown, 1994). It can be
argued that such conditions have led many
teachers to work in isolation and be limited
to brief, informal, and fragmented interactions with their colleagues and principals.
Teachers' activities are student-centred and
they tend to focus their attention on the
classroom (Smylie and Brownlee-Conyers,
1992).
Siskin (1991) stated that ``... high schools
are fundamentally different structures from
elementary schools, and one key anatomical
difference is their departmentalised differentiation of specialised teachers'' (p. 136). She
further argued that departments influence
teachers and teaching in high schools. Her
research findings indicated that there was a
high correlation between effective schools
and the strength of their departments.
Results of Siskin's (1991) study also suggest
that departments are meaningful subunits
that play a significant role in ``... the culture
and authority of secondary schools'' (p. 139).
Moreover, departments may have different
cultures, providing particular environments
that reinforce certain kinds of behaviour,
lead to different departmental policies and
practices and result in different responses to
external policies; department heads perform
as middle managers in secondary schools and
exercise power over their members. Siskin
(1991) posited that:
1 ``Departments are fundamental boundaries forming distinct subcultures within
the school''.
2 ``They provide links to and participation
in the wider community and culture of the
respective disciplines''.
3 ``They serve as potent administrative
units'' (p. 154).
Moreover, Wilson and Corcoran (1988), in
their study of effective high schools, came to
the conclusion that department heads and
members play essential leadership roles in
effective high schools. Hence, it can be
argued that the loosely-coupled structure of
high schools allows department heads to
make their own choices as professionals in
the school, in a relatively autonomous workplace, and influence the development and
implementation of a vision for the school.
The study reported here was carried out to
explore how department heads and school
organisational structure are related to the
principal's vision for the school.
Research questions
This research addresses two research
questions:
1 Is the sharing by teachers of the
principal's vision for the school positively
associated with the extent to which
department heads shared the principal's
vision?
2 Are the department heads' and teachers'
perceptions of the principal's vision for
the school related to school organisational
structure?
Methodology
The sample
Department heads and teachers of English,
mathematics, science, and social sciences
departments of 28 high schools, randomly
selected from a region of the Department of
School Education, in Sydney, Australia participated in the study. All schools and
respondents took part anonymously in the
study. Codes rather than names were used
for data analysis purposes. Of a total of 696
questionnaires which were distributed to
high schools, 273 completed questionnaires
were returned, indicating a total return of
39.2 per cent. It should be noted that in the
period of data gathering, schools were
involved in state-wide industrial unrest,
including strikes. It is possible that this
affected the willingness of principals and
teachers to participate, and consequently,
depressed the return rate.
Individually packaged questionnaires were
mailed to those principals who agreed to
participate in the study. Principals were
requested to distribute questionnaires to the
English, mathematics, science, and social
sciences departments. Each package included
a copy of the questionnaire, a reply-paid
envelope and an explanatory letter to
respondents. The explanatory letter
explained the purpose of the study, as well as
instructions for returning completed
questionnaires using a self-addressed,
stamped envelope. Respondents were
guaranteed that all information would be
treated with the strictest confidentiality.
The sample consisted of 59 department
heads, and 214 teachers. The numbers of male
and female classroom teachers were nearly
equal, whereas 65 per cent of department
heads were male. Approximately 60 per cent
of the department heads had less than ten
years teaching experience at their present
school, and 75 per cent had held the position
[ 81 ]
Mahmood Abolghasemi,
John McCormick and
Robert Conners
The importance of department
heads in the development of
teacher support for school
vision
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/2 [1999] 80±86
for less than ten years. Of the teachers,
approximately 65 per cent had more than ten
years' teaching experience in total, whereas
approximately 78 per cent had less than ten
years experience at their present schools.
The number of respondents from the social
sciences departments was slightly greater
than other departments.
Instrument
Data were gathered by means of a questionnaire which consisted of two main parts. The
first contained 13 items related to the
principal's visionary behaviour which were
concerned with articulating, communicating
and implementing a vision for the school.
Some of these items were adapted and
adopted from the ``Leadership practices inventory'' (Kouzes and Posner, 1988). The
second part consisted of 19 items concerned
with departments' subcultures, interdepartmental relationships, and the extent of
agreement, by teachers and department
heads, with the principal's vision.
The survey instrument was piloted with a
small sample of seven randomly-selected
high schools in Sydney, Australia. After
minor modifications, the instrument was
finalised for use in the main study. All
statements were scored on a five-point
Likert-type scale, ranging from ``strongly
disagree'' to ``strongly agree''.
Two versions of the instrument were used
in the study for the two groups of respondents (department heads and teachers) and
only differed slightly in wording. That is,
some statements in the teacher's version
were written using the third person, whereas
the matching statements in the department
head's version were written using the first
person.
Analysis and discussion
It should be noted that the prime purpose of
this study was not to report the evaluations
of teachers and head teachers of individual
schools and principals, but to pool these
evaluations to get a sense of the larger
picture. Therefore, analyses were carried out
at the teacher level.
Because of the exploratory nature of the
study, and to parsimoniously identify simple
structure, principal components analysis
with varimax rotation was used to analyse
each of the ``principal's visionary behaviour''
and ``school department'' sets of items.
All items of the ``principal's visionary
behaviour'' set loaded on a single factor
which is reported in Table I. This factor
had an eigenvalue of 9.4 and accounted for
[ 82 ]
72.6 per cent of the variance and was named
principal's visionary behaviour. This scale
had a high reliability alpha of 0.97. This
indicated that the measure was unidimensional, which was consistent with findings in
the pilot study. Principal's visionary behaviour is concerned with principals' practices
which are aimed at identifying new opportunities for the school, and developing,
articulating, and inspiring teachers with a
vision of the future. It also deals with a
leader's behaviours which set an example for
school members to follow that is consistent
with the values which the principal espouses.
Also, it relates to the efforts of principals to
promote co-operation among teachers toward
a common goal and to demonstrate the
principal's expectations for excellence and
quality.
Responses to ``school department'' items
were submitted to principal components
analysis with varimax rotation and four
factors were isolated using extraction
criteria eigenvalue greater than one, scree
test and interpretability. The factors were
named:
1 head teacher-principal congruence;
2 department subculture;
3 teacher-principal congruence; and
4 structural coupling,
and had eigenvalues 7.6, 2.4, 1.9, 1.2,
accounting for 40.0 per cent, 12.7 per cent, 10.3
per cent, and 6.1 per cent of the variance,
respectively. The total percentage of variance
explained by these four factors was approximately 69 per cent. The factor groupings are
shown in Table II. Reliability measures of the
four subscales are satisfactory, with alphas
ranging from 0.73 to 0.94.
Head teacher-principal congruence refers
to the extent to which department heads
share and support the principal's vision for
the school and encourage their department
members to embrace the principal's vision.
Department subculture refers basically to the
department's culture including values, goals,
practical strategies for pursuing the shared
goals, and the degree of adherence, cohesion,
and co-operation between staff within the
department. Teacher-principal congruence is
concerned with the extent to which teachers
share the principal's vision and encourage
and co-operate with their colleagues to make
it happen. Structural coupling refers to the
nature of coupling and the strength of
linkages in the school organisation, the
degree of interdepartmental co-operation,
and the extent of adherence of different
departments to the overall goals of the school,
compared to their attachment to the department's goals and values.
Mahmood Abolghasemi,
John McCormick and
Robert Conners
The importance of department
heads in the development of
teacher support for school
vision
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/2 [1999] 80±86
Table I
Factor loadings of principal's visionary behaviour items
Item
The principal
Provides teachers with practical implications of his/her vision for the school
Makes efforts to unify the directions of departments/faculties toward his/her
vision for the school
Encourages all departments/faculties to share his/her vision for the school
Makes efforts to ensure that school programmes are consistent with his/her vision
of the school
Provides teachers with opportunities to realise his/her vision for the school
Communicates school goals clearly to the teachers
Makes outstanding efforts to promote his/her vision for the school
Describes the kind of future he/she would like us to create together
Involves departments/facilities in co-operative work to achieve school goals
Makes certain that school goals are taken into account by departments/faculties
in their planning
Shows others how their future educational interests can be realised by supporting
his/her vision for the school
Is consistent in practising the values he/she espouses
Has a clearly articulated vision for the school
Loading
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.87
0.86
0.86
0.85
0.84
0.83
0.83
0.81
0.80
Table II
Factor groupings of school department items
Item
Head teacher-principal congruence
The head of my department/faculty attempts to get the department/faculty
members to support the principal's vision for the school
The head of my department/faculty directs the activities of the department/faculty
toward the principal's vision for the school
The head of my department/faculty feels committed to the principal's vision for the
school
The head of my department/faculty translates the principal's vision for the school
into practice
The head of my department/faculty takes every opportunity to communicate the
principal's vision for the school
The head of my department/faculty shares the principal's vision for the school
Loading
0.85
0.84
0.83
0.83
0.78
0.77
Department subculture
There is a set of shared norms and standards concerning teaching strategies in
my department/faculty
There is co-operation among the staff in my department/faculty
Members of my department/faculty are committed to the goals of the department/
faculty
We are happy with the way we do things in our department/faculty
Members of my department/faculty have the same set of educational values
0.80
0.76
0.69
Teacher-principal congruence
I have positive attitudes toward the principal's vision for the school
I support the principal's vision for the school
I encourage my colleagues to support the principal's vision for the school
0.79
0.76
0.67
Structural coupling
Different departments/faculties in the school have different values
Departments/faculties in the school tend to work in isolation from each other
My department/faculty puts greater emphasis on its own goals compared to those
of the school
The various departments/faculties in the school have few goals in common
My department/faculty places its own values before those of the school
0.83
0.81
0.78
0.67
0.66
0.66
0.55
[ 83 ]
Mahmood Abolghasemi,
John McCormick and
Robert Conners
The importance of department
heads in the development of
teacher support for school
vision
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/2 [1999] 80±86
Given the exploratory nature of the study,
the unweighted means of raw aggregated
item scores were used to calculate factor
scores for regression analysis (Hair et al.,
1995). Teacher-principal congruence was
treated as the dependent (criterion) variable,
and principal's visionary behaviour, head
teacher-principal congruence, department
subculture, and structural coupling were
entered stepwise as independent variables.
Table III shows that three independent
variables were entered into the regression
equation:
1 head teacher-principal congruence was
the best predictor and accounted for 48 per
cent of the variance;
2 principal's visionary behaviour; and
3 structural coupling accounted for another
13 per cent and 1 per cent of variance,
respectively.
Multicollinearity was not a problem.
To validate the regression model, the
sample was subdivided into two random
subsamples with almost equal sizes. Slight
differences in subsample sizes resulted from
missing data which excluded some cases
from analysis. The regression model for one
subsample was the same as for the full
sample with structural coupling accounting
for 2 per cent of variance. However, for the
other subsample, the first two variables were
the same, but structural coupling was not a
significant predictor. Clearly, structural
coupling is a marginal predictor. However, as
the model based on the full sample is likely to
be more stable (Kerlinger and Pedhazur,
1973) it was decided that it should be included
in the final model.
The regression model may be interpreted
in light of the stated research questions.
First, in addressing research question one, it
can be noted that the best predictor of
teachers' support for the principal's vision is
the extent to which the head teacher supports, shares and communicates the
principal's vision, and that it accounts for
nearly half the variance. This suggests that
department heads in this study played a
pivotal role in the effective building and
communication of school vision. As might be
expected, inclusion of principal's visionary
behaviour in the regression model suggests
that principals are able to directly influence
teachers and align them with the school
vision. However, the latter is arguably not as
powerful a means of aligning teachers with
the school vision as doing so by means of first
aligning department heads. Finally, a tentative answer to the second research question
has been forthcoming with the inclusion of
structural coupling in the regression model.
Thus, it appears that the extent to which
school departments are isolated, and pursue
different goals, is related in a minor way to
the congruence of teacher and principal
school vision. However, this result is not
conclusive and further research is required
to probe this issue.
Conclusions
This study highlighted the importance of the
role of department heads with regard to
school vision and has suggested that department heads play a mediating role in the
alignment of teachers with the principal's
vision for a school. This finding is consistent
with other research (Barnett, 1984; Busher,
1988; Dunham, 1978; Early and FletcherCampbell, 1989) which broadly explored the
role of department head in schools. It has
been argued that department heads are key
personnel in high schools (Dunham, 1978)
and may be considered ``... the driving force
behind any school'' (Early and FletcherCampbell, 1989, p. 102). Barnett (1984) attributed the power of department heads to their
critical position, described as the ``neck of
the hourglass'' (p. 53), in the flow of information and argued that department heads,
being in the middle position in the hierarchy,
may obtain and distribute information
throughout the school. Also, they may provide information from the middle up by
communicating departmental needs and
concerns to principals. Whatever the sources
of the power of department heads, consistent
with other relevant studies in this area the
present study has shown the importance of
Table III
Multiple regression of teacher-principal congruence with department subculture factors
Variable
One
Two
Three
Head teacher-principal congruence
Principal's visionary behaviour
Structural coupling
Notes:
[ 84 ]
R2
Step
**
p 5 0.01;
***
p 5 0.001
0.48
0.61
0.62
R2
change
0.13
0.01
F change
Beta in
248.53***
86.51***
6.20**
0.69
0.43
0.11
Mahmood Abolghasemi,
John McCormick and
Robert Conners
The importance of department
heads in the development of
teacher support for school
vision
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/2 [1999] 80±86
the department heads specifically in relation
to the principal's vision.
Further, the results support the more
predictable view that principals who demonstrate strong visionary behaviours, receive
more support from teachers toward their
vision for the school. This is consistent with
the findings of Greenfield et al. (1992) which
suggested that teachers who perceived
principals to be visionary more probably
shared the vision.
Furthermore, although evidence is inconclusive, in terms of structural coupling it can
be concluded that strength of linkages
between departments appear to be associated
with greater alignment of staff with the
principal's vision. The stronger the coupling,
the more co-operation between departments
and the greater the attachment and adherence to the shared values and goals of the
school. The results are consistent with the
findings of other researchers (Harris et al.,
1995; Rowan et al., 1991, Siskin, 1991;
Stodolsky, 1993; Turner, 1996) that suggest
departments are influential and meaningful
subunits and they influence the assumptions
and perceptions of teachers in relation to
educational goals and school vision.
Finally, the results of this study have
practical implications for principals and
school middle managers. Principals should
seek to harmonise departments' subcultures
with the school culture and school vision. In
doing this, they need to appreciate the
essential influence which department heads
may have on teachers' attitudes. In the first
instance, principals would be advised to
attempt to develop a sense of solidarity with
the middle managers, by facilitating interdepartmental co-operation, making the communication of a unified school vision more
likely. For their part, department heads
should look beyond narrow departmental
interests and appreciate their responsibility
to assist in the development of a learning
environment oriented to the development
and implementation of a vision for the
school.
References
Ball, S.J. (1987), The Micropolitics of the School,
Methuen, London.
Barnett, B.G. (1984), ``Subordinate teacher power
in school organisations'', Sociology of
Education, Vol. 57, January, pp. 43-55.
Barth, R.S. (1988), ``Principals, teachers, and
school leadership'', Phi Delta Kappa, Vol. 69
No. 9, pp. 639-42.
Bass, B.M. (1990), ``From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the
vision'', Organizational Dynamics, Winter,
pp. 19-31.
Bennis, W. (1984), ``Transformative power and
leadership'', in Sergiovanni, T. and Corbally,
J. (Eds.) Leadership and Organizational
Culture, University of Illinios Press, Urbana,
IL, pp. 64-71.
Bidwell, C.E. (1965), ``The school as a formal
organisation'', in March, J.G. (Ed.) Handbook
of Organizations, Rand-McNally, Chicago, IL,
pp. 972-1022.
Blendinger, J. and Jones, L.T. (1989), ``Start with
culture to improve your schools'', The School
Administrator, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 22-5.
Blumberg, A. and Greenfield, W.D. (1987), The
Effective Principal: Perspectives on School
Leadership, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Busher, H. (1988), ``Reducing role overload for a
head of department: a rationale for fostering
staff development'', School Organization,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 99-103.
Conger, J.A. (1990), ``The dark side of leadership'',
Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, pp. 44-55.
Dunham, J. (1978), ``Change and stress in the head
of department's role'', Educational Research,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 44-7.
Early, P. and Fletcher-Campbell, F. (1989),
``Managing school departments and faculties:
towards better practice'', Educational
Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 98-112.
Firestone, W.A. and Herriott, R.E. (1982), ``Two
images of schools as organisations: an explication and illustrative empirical test'',
Educational Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 39-59.
Fritz, R. (1986), ``The leader as creator'', in
Adams, J.D. (Ed.) Transforming Leadership:
from Vision to Results, Miles River Press,
Alexandria, VA, pp. 159-82.
Greenfield, W., Licata, J.W. and Johnson, B.L.
(1992), ``Towards measurement of school
vision'', Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 65-76.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and
Black, W.C. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis
with Readings (4th ed.), Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Harris, A, Jamison, I. and Russ, J. (1995), ``A
study of effective departments in secondary
schools'', School Organization, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 283-99.
Horne, S. (1992), ``Organization and change within
educational systems: some implications of a
loose-coupling model'', Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 88-98.
Johnstone, J.H. (1987), ``Values, cultures, and the
effective school'', NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 71
No. 497, pp.79-88.
Kerlinger, F.N. and Pedhazur, E.J. (1973), Multiple
Regression in Behavioral Research, Holt,
Rinehart and Wilson, New York, NY.
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1988), Leadership
Practices Inventory, Kouzes Posner International Inc., CA.
[ 85 ]
Mahmood Abolghasemi,
John McCormick and
Robert Conners
The importance of department
heads in the development of
teacher support for school
vision
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/2 [1999] 80±86
[ 86 ]
Lambert, L.G. (1988), ``Building school culture: an
open letter to principals'', NASSP Bulletin,
Vol. 72 No. 506, pp. 54-62.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1990), ``Transformational leadership: how principals can help
reform school cultures'', School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, Vol. 1 No. 4,
pp. 249-80.
MacKinnon, J.D. and Brown, M.E. (1994),
``Inclusion in secondary schools: an analysis
of school structure based on teachers' images
of change'', Educational Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 126-52.
Manasse, A.L. (1986), ``Vision and leadership:
paying attention to intention'', Peabody
Journal of Education, Vol. 63 No.1, pp. 150-73.
Maxwell, T.W. and Thomas, A.R. (1991), ``School
climate and school culture'', Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 29 No, 2,
pp. 72-82.
Nanus, B. (1992), Visionary Leadership, JosseyBass, San Francisco CA.
Rowan, B., Raudenbush, S.W. and Kang, S.J.
(1991), ``Organisational design in high
schools: a multilevel analysis'', American
Journal of Education, Vol. 99, No. 2, pp. 238-66.
Sashkin, M. (1993), ``The visionary principal:
school leadership for the next century'', in
Sashkin, M. and Walberg, H.J. (Eds), Educational Leadership and School Culture,
McCutchan, Berkeley, CA, pp. 75-85.
Siskin, L.S. (1991), ``Departments as different
worlds: subject subcultures in secondary
schools'', Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 134-60.
Smylie, M.A. and Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1992),
``Teacher leaders and their principals: exploring the development of new working
relationships'', Educational Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 150-84.
Staessens, K. and Vandenberghe, R. (1994),
``Vision as a core component in school
culture'', Journal of Curriculum Studies,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 187-200.
Stalhammar, B. (1994), ``Goal-oriented leadership
in Swedish schools'', Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 14-25.
Starratt, R.J. (1993), ``Leadership and vision'', in
Starratt, R.J., Transforming Life in Schools:
Conversations About Leadership and School
Renewal, Australian Council for Educational
Administration, Hawthorne, Victoria,
pp. 41-7.
Stodolsky, S.S. (1993), ``A framework for subject
matter comparisons in high schools'', Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 333-46.
Turner, C.K. (1996), ``The roles and tasks of a
subject head of department in secondary
schools in England and Wales: a neglected
area of research?'', School Organization,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 203-17.
Weick, K.E. (1976), ``Educational organizations as
loosely coupled systems'', Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Wilson, B. and Corcoran, T. (1988), Successful
Secondary Schools, Falmer Press, New York,
NY.