Advertisement

The School District and the Development of Trust in New Principals: Policies and Actions that Influence Succession

Chapter
  • 681 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Educational Leadership book series (SIEL, volume 13)

Abstract

Administrator turnover is an important event in the life of a school as principals provide direction for the school and have the potential to affect its culture. This chapter builds on earlier findings concerning the establishment of trust in a new principal’s administration. In this chapter, we explore the external factors by focusing on the role that school districts play in creating a policy and procedural environment that affects the development of trust between teachers and principals, particularly in schools that have experienced rapid turnover in principals. Practices used by different principals in order to build relationships may be able to provide greater insight into the process of succession. Furthermore, teachers who frequently experience leadership succession events would likely have insights and opinions about the patterns of succession processes. We were interested in whether some processes and practices were more successful than others in fostering trust in the new administrator.

Keywords

School District School Board Succession Event Central Office School Council 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the administrators and teachers who kindly agreed to be part of this study.

This research is supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada .

References

  1. Bottery, M. (2003). The management and mismanagement of trust. Educational Management & Administration, 31(3), 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brinberg, D., & McGrath, J. (1982). A network of validity concepts within the research process. In D. Brinberg & L. Kidder (Eds.), Forms of validity in research (pp. 5–21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2004). Principals’ succession and educational change. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(4), 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fukuyama, F. (1996). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces—the sequel. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  7. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gordon, G., & Rosen, N. (1981). Critical factors in leadership succession. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27(2), 227–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. (1998). Distinguishing trust and power in interorganizational relationships. In C. Lane & R. Bachmann (Eds.), Trust within and between organizations (pp. 64–87). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  11. Hargreaves, A., Moore, S., Fink, D., & White, R. E. (2002). An investigation of secondary school principal rotation and succession in times of standards-based reform and rapid demographics. Toronto: Ontario Principals Council.Google Scholar
  12. Hart, A. (1993). Principal succession. Albany: SUNY.Google Scholar
  13. Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. (1998). Phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and interpretive practice. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 137–157). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Ingstrup, O., & Crookall, P. (1998). The three pillars of public management. Montreal: McGill Queen’s.Google Scholar
  15. Leithwood, K., & Reihl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Philadelphia: Laboratory for Student Success.Google Scholar
  16. Lincoln, Y. (1997). Self, subject, audience text: Living at the edge, writing in the margins. In W. Tierney & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Representation and the text (pp. 37–56). Albany: SUNY.Google Scholar
  17. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Macmillan, R. (1996). The relationship between school culture and principal’s practices at the time of succession. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  20. Macmillan, R. (2001). Leadership succession, cultures of teaching and educational change. In N. Bascia & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), The sharp edge of educational change (pp. 52–71). London: Routledge-Falmer.Google Scholar
  21. Macmillan, R., Meyer, M., & Northfield, S. (2004). Trust and its role in principal succession: A preliminary examination of a continuum of trust. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(4), 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Macmillan, R., Meyer, M., & Northfield, S. (2005). The necessity of trust for the school leader. In H. Armstrong (Ed.), Examining the practice of school administration in Canada (pp. 85–102). Calgary: Detselig.Google Scholar
  23. Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Miskel, C., & Cosgrove, D. (1985). Leader succession in school settings. Review of Educational Research, 55(1), 87–105.Google Scholar
  26. Normore, A. (2001). Recruitment, socialization, and accountability of administrators in two school districts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ontario Institute for the Study of Education at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
  27. Reichardt, C., & Cook, T. (1979). Qualitative methods in evaluation research. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Shea, G. (1984). Building trust in the workplace. New York: American Management Associations.Google Scholar
  29. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weindling, N., & Earley, P. (1987). Secondary headship: The first years. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationSt. Francis Xavier UniversityAntigonishCanada
  3. 3.School of EducationUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  4. 4.Faculty of EducationMount Saint Vincent UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations