School leadership writ small: Meetings and school principal practice

This paper systematically reviews literature on meetings of the principal or principal meetings from 1970 to 2021. Even though meetings comprise the largest percentage of principal time, they have been overlooked as a topic of research. The purpose of this review is to study notations of meetings in academic literature and develop analytical insights on school leadership practice. The systematic literature search used keyword search, snowballing, and personal network references to yield 62 academic publications. The results of the review indicate that educational literature provides limited and often summative notations of principal meetings. Importantly, the limited notations are still able to illuminate and nuance three dimensions of school principalship – bridging, bending, and balancing. Further, three possible conceptualizations of principal meetings as waste of time, familiar events, and intervention tools provide analytical insights into meetings as a microcosm of school principal practice. Implications for theory, practice, and further research are provided.

The Relationship Between Measures of Preservice Principal Practice and Future Principal Job Performance

Principals are the second-largest school-based contributor to student achievement. Interventions focused early in the “pipeline” for identifying and developing effective principals might be a promising strategy for promoting principal effectiveness, yet no prior research has examined measures of principal performance during preservice preparation. We analyze 31 measures of principal practices developed by New Leaders and integrate into their year-long, preservice Aspiring Principals program. We link these measures to administrative data in nine districts to understand how they predict student and principal outcomes after candidate placement. We find associations with gains in student achievement on standardized tests, gains in student attendance, and higher rates of principal retention. We compare our results with studies of measures from licensure exams and evaluation systems.

"Polydiplomacy" as a confrontational model of modern relations of the Collective West with Russia

Multyaceted Diplomacy as the modern Confrontation Model of "Collective West" against Russian Federation. This article is dedicated to the exceptionally complex relationship between Russia and "Collective West" (Western European countries) instigated by the USA where US is provoking anti-Russian sanctions and acts as a catalyst of large–scale confrontations against Russian Federation. The author pays special attention to the systematic confrontation launched against the leadership of Russia since 2014. The forms and methods of anti — Russian policy and diplomacy are analyzed through the model of multifaceted "polidiplomacy" (the pressure diplomacy, sanction diplomacy, informational (media) diplomacy, as well as "diplomacy" of challenges, threats, and blackmail, and the newest type of diplomacy — the "pandemic diplomacy". Despite the difference of forms and specific realization methods for each particular sub-model, their main purpose of it is to inflict the maximum damage/destruction to the very existence of Russia using sanctions as its principal practice. The article analyzes the peculiarities of political pressure and enforcements of anti-Russian policy launched during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joseph Biden who were actively supported by the UK leadership and a number of European Union members.

Decomposition of Practice as an Activity for Research-Practice Partnerships

This analysis examines the process of one research-practice partnership (RPP) engaged in the activity of decomposing elementary principal practice in the context of an instructional improvement initiative in mathematics. Decomposing, or breaking apart, complex practice has been used primarily by researchers to inform the design of pre-service teacher education. We argue that decomposition is a rich activity for researchers and practitioners to collaboratively engage in to support improvement efforts where practitioners are expected to transform their day-to-day practice. We examine what can be learned from the process by which one RPP engaged in decomposing practice that might be useful for other RPPs. Our retrospective, qualitative analysis supports understanding of how RPPs might engage in decomposition and the role decomposition might play in supporting RPPs to foster educational transformation in local contexts.

Evaluating School Principals: Supervisor Ratings of Principal Practice and Principal Job Performance

Numerous studies investigate high-stakes personnel evaluation systems in education, but nearly all focus on evaluation of teachers. We instead examine the evaluation of school principals at scale using data from the first 4 years of implementation of Tennessee’s multiple-measure administrator evaluation system. We focus specifically on the rubric-based practice ratings given by principals’ supervisors that constitute one half of principals’ overall evaluation scores. We find that supervisors’ ratings are internally consistent, relatively stable over time, and predictive of other performance measures, such as student achievement growth and teachers’ ratings of school leadership quality. However, raters fail to differentiate dimensions of principal practice, and ratings may be biased by factors, such as school poverty, outside the principal’s control.

Brokering, buffering, and the rationalities of principal work

Purpose Brokering and buffering represent two ways in which principals may respond to hyperrational elements of policy demands in the current era of accountability. The purpose of this paper is to examine how some principals broker more efficient, measurable, and predictable evaluation practices for teachers and others buffer their teachers from inefficient, immeasurable, and unpredictable aspects of policy. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative data were obtained from 37 school principals and 363 teachers across 12 districts participating in a new teacher evaluation policy in one state of the USA. Principal interviews and teacher focus groups were conducted at the beginning, middle, and end of 2012-2013. Transcripts were coded to identify hyperrational elements of the policy and principals’ brokering and buffering practices. Findings All principals described elements of the new evaluation policy as inefficient, incalculable, or unpredictable – hallmarks of hyperrationality. Principals brokered efficiency by designing schoolwide parent goals and centralizing procedures; brokered transparency of calculation methods and focused teacher attention on measuring effort, rather than outcomes; and encouraged collective sensemaking to facilitate predictable procedures and outcomes. Principals buffered teachers by de-emphasizing the parent-based component; minimizing the quantitative nature of the ratings; ceding responsibility over calculations to district leaders; and lowering expectations to make ratings controllable. Originality/value The paper provides new understanding of principals’ strategic leadership practices, which represented rational responses to hyperrational policy demands. Therefore, the paper includes recommendations for principal preparation, district support for policy implementation, and further research on principal practice.

The language of leadership: principal rhetoric in everyday practice

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to call for a rhetorical turn in the study of school leadership and discusses how principals use language to enact school improvement. The key purpose is to explore how talk is action in leading and managing school reform. Design/methodology/approach – This paper presents a rhetorical framework and methodology for interpreting principal practice through language. As a model, the language use of one urban school principal is examined through a rhetorical analysis of 650 instances of principal talk in 14 administrative meetings. The paper reports on the form and content of principal rhetoric, including analysis of logos, pathos, and ethos, and comparative analysis across meeting contexts. Findings – The paper demonstrates the importance of rhetorical form and content and highlights the role of audience in principal talk. In the present example, each of three rhetorical forms was used to transform school practice. Logos was used most frequently; emotional and ethical arguments were also integral to principal talk. Comparative analysis showed that the principal's rhetoric varied by audience. The principal's use of language did not just explain practice, but also defined and shaped ongoing practices. Research limitations/implications – The author proposes future cross-case research to develop an understanding of how leadership language varies across individuals and contexts, as well as interaction analyses of the co-performance of discourse and rhetoric in schools. Practical implications – The author argues that principal preparation would benefit from the incorporation of the linguistic concepts and forms of rhetoric, particularly in the context of school improvement. Originality/value – While many have turned to principal practice as an area of research, few have focussed on the underlying linguistic structures. This paper emphasizes the importance of language in principal practice and offers a specific methodology with which to study it.