Page 29 - Monograph201302

Looking a little deeper, F. Wang (2005) 2007), they generally saw their role
found differences between teachers?? from an administrative perspective only
and principals??perceptions of principal (C.L. Zhang, 2004). They provided
leadership behaviours. His findings indirect support rather than direct
suggested that teachers were supervision through teacher evaluation
significantly less positive about schemes. Principals were minimally
principals??supportive behaviours than involved in quality assurance, tracking
their school leaders. instructional effects, providing
feedback, or mentoring. They were
A similar pattern emerged from studies more likely to see their instructional
adopting imported participative function as raising funds to support the
leadership frameworks. These studies curriculum (J.X. Li, Xu, & Li, 2006),
reported that, even as principals gave rather than direct involvement with
lip service to the importance of teacher the curriculum and instruction,
participation (An, 2006), they had little team building, teacher professional
trust in teachers??ability to participate development, and teachers??partici-
meaningfully in school management. pation in learning and training (Huang,
Concerns were expressed about 2008a; C.H. Li, 2006; L. Liu, 2005; L.
whether participation in decision- Wang, 2007).
making would compromise principal
authority (Lu, 2002, 2007). Principals Part of the reason
appeared more inclined to rely on principals kept their
hierarchical rather than professional distance from curricu-
power to lead their schools. L. Wang lum and instruction
(2007) reported that schools generally appeared to be that
lacked openness and democratic or they lacked effective
cooperative decision-making structures strategies or suffi-
and operated under hierarchical cient capacity to
management structures which mirrored perform these funct-
those prevalent in other government ions (M.H. Chen,
organisations. T.L. Lin (2007) summed 2007; Y.P. Ma, Wang,
up a fairly common notion that although & Xie, 2008). These
principals were familiar with and even shortfalls were accen-
attracted to imported leadership tuated in rural areas
notions, such as transformational and where principals were
participative leadership, they saw these confused about their
as idealist but not feasible management role in curriculum
styles. reform, and con-
tinued to focus on
The same conclusions were found in examination-oriented
studies framed by imported strategies and prior-
instructional leadership and/or itising physical con-
curriculum leadership models. Whereas struction (J.H. Hu,
principals emphasised the central place 2005; Y.P. Ma, Wang,
of instruction and curriculum in their & Yan, 2005; B.
schools (e.g., Y.L. Tao, 2008; X.L. Wang, Wang, 2005).

23