Tewell, K.J. (1987, April). Urban high school principals need a new kind of support system. NASSP Bulletin, pp. 101-112.

OVERVIEW

The study shows that although the three principals interviewed were able to bring their respective schools through their crises, the methods they used made continued growth (within the school) after the crisis difficult.

DESIGN

The troubles in many urban schools resulted in the hiring of principals to "save" the schools. "Stories abound about principals or urban high schools who transformed violent, crime-ridden, racially torn schools into calm and peaceful places...The Ford Foundation, in the City High School Recognition Program, documented and recognized such improvements in 202 urban high students in 57 cities." In this study, Kenneth J. Tewel interviewed three of the 202 principals. He wanted to know:

• Can crisis management can be accomplished so that the groundwork is laid for further innovations in the educational program once a school is stabilized?
• Can a principal who has been effective in improving climate also lead the school to genuine instructional improvement?
• Can the authoritarian style of leadership that brought calm and control to a school also be used to lead the effort to improve instruction?
• What kind of assistance principals would find helpful in making the transition?

FINDINGS

• The priority of all three principals was to create a safe environment where learning could occur.
• All three principals used an authoritarian type of leadership to change the situation and bring order out of chaos.
• The principals typically acted instinctually. They saw a problem, developed a plan to deal with it, and implemented the plan.
• These principals were unfamiliar "...with effective strategies for managing change, (they)...were not aware of how the changes would affect their schools’ culture in the long term." (p. 103)
• "The principals seemed out of touch with the ways their attitudes affected their behavior and were also unaware of the negative impact of their behavior on others. They viewed failure as a result of others’ inadequacies rather than their own inadequate behavior." (p. 103)
• The principals tended to feel alone and vulnerable when implementing change. This tended to make them more authoritarian and rigid in the way they did things. This, in turn, created resentment in the faculty and staff. They felt that their opinions and feelings were not important.
• "When change was unplanned, the principals’ need to be seen as ‘in charge’ superseded their need for psychological support." (p. 105). In other words, although they will seek support before making a change when they have time to plan, but when they are caught without time to plan, they will act and stick to their decision even under universal criticism and although they believe they have made a mistake.
• They received little long-range help from those in positions of higher authority; as long as the crisis was resolved, that was good enough.
• Tension between the teachers and principals developed, each blaming the other for the problem. "Clearly, the weaknesses in the principals’ leadership style created factions among staff members." (p. 107). "However,...the situations were desperate. Something had to be done immediately if the schools were to survive. The three principals diagnosed the schools’ problems. They developed plans, acted, and produced results. Among the costs was the brutalization of the relations between teachers and the innovating principals." (p. 108)

CONCLUSIONS

• "...An authoritarian rule is conducive—indeed, essential—to pushing through the reforms needed to overcome the schools’ immediate problems." (p. 109)
• These principals must "...be encouraged to include the faculty in decision-making roles in the innovation process." (p. 108)
• "Unfortunately, once the crisis atmosphere passes and the learning climate improves, the authoritarian leadership style is often no longer effective...different stages of development...require different types of leadership. Many principals are unable to shift their mode of leadership to fit the new school circumstances." (p. 109)
• "The faculty must be persuaded to assume ownership and responsibility for the school and its programs." (p. 109)
• Principals may need help giving up some of the control to which they are accustomed, giving up something that worked. They may need help becoming an "instructional leader" instead of "climate manager." (p. 110)
• "First, they want an opportunity to acquire information about successful school improvement strategies." (p. 110)
• "Second, principals request assistance as they rethink their roles once their schools have overcome severe climate problems." (p. 110)
• "Third, principals express a need for a structured mentoring program." (p. 110)
• The atmosphere at the school must be conducive to change. "If an individual’s need for acceptance and worth are not satisfied, he or she will probably not lower defenses and take the risks that accompany change." (p. 111) In other words, if a given principal does not feel supported and accepted, he or she will probably not risk changing.

CRITIQUE AND EVALUATION

It would have been helpful if this study had included a larger percentage of the 202 principals. It does raise good questions and indicates that follow-up is needed after crisis resolution to make sure that there is continued growth—not complacency and stagnation.

IMPLICATION

School is a daily affair that has long-lasting effects not only on our children but also on our society. It is essential not only to work to bring a school through a crisis, but also to make sure that the school moves beyond the crisis to develop quality academic and social programs. Parents can help improve the schools by being involved. Parents can volunteer within the classroom or in other ways within the school if they have a willingness to help and have a positive, team-focused attitude. Another way to help is to encourage and lift up teachers and administrators. Let them know that their dedication and work are appreciated. Help the schools by running for the school board—they can never have enough good people.

Geoffrey C. Graham cCYS