A Study of thp Principal
Under Education Reform in Sri Lanka

Weining C. Chang
with
S. Dharmawardena & Molly Teas

June 30,

1988

TABLE OF CONTENTI.
II.

Introduction
Literature Review
A.

Effective Schools in the United States

B.

The Role of the Principal

C.

Leadership Styles

D.

Effective Principalship in the United States

III.

The Sri Lankan Context

IV.

The Empirical StudyA.

Research Objectives

B.

Specific Questions AddressedC.

Instruments

D.

A Conceptual Framework

E.

Operationalization of Terms

F.

Data Analysis

V.

Results of the Empirical Study

VI.

Conclusions and Discussion

List of References
TablesFiguresLIST OF TABLES

Characteristics of "Effective"

Schools...............

1

Summary of Effective School Characteristics
and Dimensions of Effective Principalship ............

2

Halpin's Leadership Quadrant .........................

3

Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid ..................

4

Distribution of the Principal's Time During
an "Average" School Day .............................

5

The Average Amount of Time New York Principals
Actually Spend, and Ideally Would Spend,
Performing Various Role Functions...................
Ranking of job activities by Principals
in Sri Lanka

6.........................................

7

Dimensions of Principal's Management Orientation .....

8

Operationalization and Measurementof Major Variables ....................................

9

Management Orientation of Principals
Sampled (Weighted) ...................................

10

School Outcomes by Principal Typology ................

11

Management Orientation by Ty'pe of Schools ...........

12

Management Orientation by Principal's
Status ................................................

13

Management Orientation by Gender of Principals .....

14

Management Orientation by Service Status

15...........

Management Orientation by Location of Schools ......

16

Management Orientation by Cluster Status

17...........

Mean Score of Management Behaviors ofPrincipals Sampled (Weighted) .......................

18

Predicting School Outcome with Management
Behavior ............................................

19

Frequency Distribution by Types of Training.......

Management Behavior by Types of Training ..........

36
37

LIST OF FIGURES

Major Concepts of Management Study ......................

1

LBDQ Frequency Distribution of Initiating
Structure Scale of Principals Sampled..................

2

LBDQ Frequency Distribution of Consideration
Scale of Principals Sampled ..............................

3

Frequency Distribution of Perceived Practiceof Curricular Management Dimension....................

4

Frequency Distribution of Perceived Practice
Executive Function.....................................

Frequency Distribution of CurricularManagement Dimension of Management Orientation.........

5

6

Frequency Distribution of Executive Functionof Manaopaent Orientation................................7
Management Typology...................................

8Frequency Distribution of Principals Classified
in Different Management Orientation Types..............

9Frequency Distribution of Principals Who Have
Received Training.....................................

10

Frequency Distribution of Principals'
Participation in Different Types of Training ............

11

The Principal Study
Executive Summary

In
part

the

principal's

profileofStudyprincipals

the principal as definedstudy,

adescription

in

we

Sri

present

Lanka;

a

the

three

role ofby the management orientation

of

the

management

practiceofthe principals and their relationship to selected schooloutcomemeasuredtrainingonandfinally,theeffectspracticeandselected

under

the

management

of

staff
schooloutcomes.
The

role

Reform in
ing
to

of

principal

Education

Sri Lanka was empirically defined by solicit­

statements
be

the

from

performed

MOE

by

a

officials

schoolserve as a change agent.

about

principal

the

in

tasks

order

to

These statements were drawn

together to develop a qu3stionnaire which was adminis­
tered to 150 principals in
Two

other

measurement

the Colombo area as a pretest.
instruments

the Principal's Study as well.
Survey and the Leadership

wereutilized

for

They were the Principal':sBehavior Descriptive Question­

naire (LBDQ).
The

management

pretestresultsfromfactoranalyzedtoCurriculum

orientation
the
yield

Management

were

which

were

of

tasks:

Executive

Functionwhich

the tasks containedinAgreeing or disa­
the two dimensions

used as a measure of the principal's management

orientation.
athedimensions

delineate the role of the principal.
greeing withutilized

questionnaire
two

and

study

four

Using

category

was constructed.

themediumtypology

of

as

a

cut-off

principal's

point,

orientation

This typology

was found to be a significant predictorof school outcomes as well as management practices.
In

addition,behavior

perceivedcontained

frequency

in

these

of

practicing

dimensions

the

were

used

as one measure of management practice.

The LBDQ,

a widely used instrument in describing
manager/administrative leadership behavior wasadmini­stered to five teachers randomly selectedfrom eachschoolsampledoftheprincipals

theprincipals

todetermineinSrisampledtheleadership

Lanka.

Itwas

styles

found

that

In

this study were perceived
by there teachers as being very similar to theeduca­
tion administrators studied in the USA with
the LBDQ.
However,the Sri Lankan principals scored slightly
higherontheconsiderationon the initiation structure,

Anotherpracticesurveymeasurewasing

developeddata.

of management

of

It

scale

ie.

they

did

task oriented scale.

theprincipal'sutilizingconsists

thanofmanagement

questionnaire

fivecomposite

andindexespractices which were formulated accord­

to the concept

of

the

principal

as a

front

line

measureswere

manager.
Both

sets

of

management

practice

analyzedagainstprincipals

In

order

to

determinepractices

were

used

by

which

the

personal

characteristics
which

of

'he

management

types of principals.
Certain personal characteristics were foundto signifi­
cantly affectmanagement practice.
For example,
principals who live close to the school
reported
more active management practices.

andStructuralvariables,

theof schools

location

such

as

were

the type

also usedofto determine

whether

there

againstmanagement

orientation

andpractices.

cases,

there

significant

but

small

were

differences

werebetweenschools,thesevariablesIn

mostdifferences.

Different configurations of organizational factors definitely
make differences inmanagement
variables

the styles and practices of principal's

behaviors.

Importantamong

was the presence of a strong

Principals

inclusterschools

Practices on

the twodivisional office.

withbacking report more active management

these structuralstrongdivisional

practices.

management

oreintation

dimen­

sions and the subscales of LBDQ were found to be signifi­
cantpredictors

Each

of

the

of

selected

fiveschoolmanagement

outcomepractice

measures.

indexeswere.. so significant predictors of the school outcome measures.
The Indexes were also strongly associated with the imple­
mentation of school based innovations such as improvementof teaching materials.

Schools
types ofandhighercurricularareas

different

schools evidenced

orientation
scoredinpractice.

orallschools instatusanddifferent

different

management

patterns

Typemanagement

management.

showedclusterB,

1A,

behavior

Non-clusteredCmeasuresschoolshigher executive function

principals
but

in

rural

orientation;

rural

modified clusters showed less execut-ve function

indicating less autonomy inRural

non-clusteredthese schools.

principals

are

also

perceived

as being more considerate.

training.Staffallmanagement

however,smallof measures.

waspractice
and

found

to

measures.

variedacross

make

a

The
the

differenceineffects

were,different

types

The

Principal's

Study

employed

to study the principal's management
Dependingonthenatureanalyticalmethods

were

variablewasnominalvariance

was

used;

was

ordinalorhigher,analyses

pret.

In

mos.L

measure,
Where

where

the

correlationused.

measurespractices and behaviors.

categorical,

wereof missing data often

the

used.

or

of

regressionofmultipledifferent
the

data

dependent

one-way

analysis

independent

variableanalyses

multipleTheorexcessive

amountmade the results difficult to Inter­cases,

there

were

significant

findings,

but the effects were often small.
Another

weaknesstwotypes ofinformation

(1)

the

and

content ofdetailed

of

the

study

necessary

Information

the staff

training

was

the

lack

of

for

it's

cumpletion:

about

the

curriculum

programs,

and

(2)

the

student achievement measures to serve as school effective­
ness outcome measures.
should be included inItisproposed that these issues

a future research agenda on manage­

ment effectiveness of schools.

INTRODUCTION

The
Lanka

1981

calledwhiteforpaper on

Education

ReformIn Sristructuralreforms to facilitate more
efficiency in the education system.
Equality of qualityof edUcation was also a concern of the Education Reform.
Two different forms of clusters have been experimented
sothat better school canpool

their resources

with

the

and

to

lesser schools.
Toaccommodate

thisstructuralchange,serve as change agent,

the principals in

Sri

now

mass.

been

being

studiestrainedonthediagnosis

proposals

for

the

Bank,

World

en

training

There

has

Lanka areseveralofeducation

management

and

(for

instance,

UNESCO,

1985;1986).

Thereis,however,aneed

to identify the role of the principal under this Reform,
the management practice of the principals, effectivenessof these practices, the effect of staff training and to
identify

patternsofmanagerial

roles

and

practicesofthe principal within different cluster status.
In

the

U.S.,

current

researchers

took

a different

attitude from that of the Coleman Report (Coleman, 1966)
in terms of the role of the school In education achievement.
Thischangeinattitudewasmainlya series of research on "effective schools"
et al,

1979; Lezotte 1976; and Rutter,
More

recentresearch

have

(e.S.

causedbyBrrokover1979).

been able toconstructa much clearer picture of a successful school.
A commonfinding is tht an effective school is a school wherethe "environment" is conducive to learning (AASA, 1983).

The

environment

found

to be

strong"leadership"conducive

associated

with

and

to

learning

principals thatmanagerial

has

been

demonstrated

practices

that

are

considered effective.

Effective
tobemanagement

highlycontex-tual

behaviors,oriented

however,

and

vary

seem

accordingto the specific outcomes being measured.
In
review

the ensuingonthepages,

wewill present a literaturestudiesofprincipals
Sri

study

of

the

principals

in

a

of

a

management

study

on

a

mainly

on

the

part

and

an

Lanka.

empirical

This

study

Is

national

sample ofprincipals (see Cumming's chapters on sample
and research

design).

The

study

focusesrole and management
experience,
are

also

practices of the principal.

school types and

used

to

personalsee

if

profile,Training

cluster status of the school

there

are

different

managerial

usedassesspatterns across the principals.
Someoutcome"effectiveness"ofIndicators
the

are

principals

to

the

behaviors.

However,
we would only present these effective results
as preliminaryreference.
We propose that a study of effective management
practice cannot
be conducteduntil a more objective
criterion measure of school effectiveness is derived.
The

paper

is

dividedIntoliterature

review,adescription

instrumehts

used,

a

list

the results.

ofseveraloffindings

sections:

the

study

and

a

a

and

the

commentonLITERATURE

REVIEW

The Effective School
Fullerofmaterial(1985)

defines

ir,utsallocatedschoolarequalityas:organized

the level
andmanagedto raise pupil achievement.
Cohen & Rossmiller (1987)
schooleffectivenessin

more recently have discussed

terms

of two sets of variables.
One set relates to the structural and bureaucratic dimensionof schooling.
The second set pertains to the culture andclimate within the school.
of theschoolThey argued that the leadership

and

the

to

produceachievement

expenditures

andresourcesperaresearch

theprocesses

range of

way

in

which

resources

are

than

level

se.

They

evidence that

adequate

do

used­
of

concJude fromresourcesarepart but not all of school improvement process is leadership(cited in Mucahy & Ranbaud, 1988).
Effective

schoolresearchpoint

schools share a certain common etho,

out

i.e.,

that

effectivea school culture

or climate.
This culture or

climateiscreatedor facilitatedbythe principal of the school (e.g. Edmonds, 1979; Brookover,
1979; and Venezky & Winfield,
1979),
especially on what
does a principal do to facilitate the creation of such effective
school ethos (Achilles & Keedy, 1983).
RecentresearchinschoolIts focus from the static content

effectivenesshaschangedissue or the input-output

factors to the dynamic process through which the resources
are utilized in the school to effectively produce the desirable
outcome (Mucahy & Ranbaud,1988).

The

principal,

In

overseeing

in

this

and

dynamic

the school.

thus

can

be

orchestratingprocesstoregarded

personnel

achieve

the

as

the

and

other

desirable

key

factorresources

outcomesofThis notion corresponds to research findings.

Table

1

presents

threecomparable

list ofcharacteristics

effective

principalship

be looked

upon as a complex

social systemmembers'

behaviorsof effect schools.
Table

2

presents

a

list

of

the

corresponding to the effective schools.

Role of the Principal in
Schools should
where

the

component

findings in(Lorti,be explainedby1975).
schoolisadministrative

distinguishacansocial psychology and other branches of social behaviors

Theofthe U.S.

collection

aninstitution

organizations.

nestledIt

theprincipal

asof

importantfunctionsaiswithina

network

therefore

necessary

to

and

the

principal

aswithintheorganization,

personi.e. the role of the principal.

The

principal

both

Is

a

leaderanda1982).

As .thechiefadministrative

officerprincipal

isdirectcharge of both

day

in

tinuing operation of the school.
oftheeducationsystem,thefollowerof theto day(Block,school,andthethe con­As a representative and member
principal

executes

decisionsandSimilarly,

theapplies policies generated by supervisors.
Schools

vary

in

size

role of the principal and
tions

may

must

be managed1987).

vary

from

and

complexity.

organizational

place

to

place,

by the principal

and community
but

the

are similar

expecta­functions(Hugheswhich& Ubben,

In

May,

1980,

the

Educational

Research

Serviceobtainedfrom a national sample of school districts written job descriptions
for

the

job

descriptions

positionofelementarywereschoolanalyzed.

summarize

the duties

andprincipals

specifiedinprincipal.

The

than

one

following categories

responsibilities

more

Seventyof

50% ofelementary

the

job

schooldescription

examined:o Curriculum

development,oPaper work--forms,oDevelopmentchange and implementation(63%)

reports and correspondence (59%)

or administrationof the annual school budget(51%)
o Supervision of the building and ground(56%)

Recruitment and hiring of teacher candidates (56%)
Supervision and evaluation of teaching and non-teachingoostaff performance (75%)
Interpretationoof thethe community
Actionsorelatededucational

programtoparents and

(58%)
to

the

for all persons inmaintenanceof

healthandsafetythe building (61%)

Other functions of the principal found within the job descrip­
tions

included:

wide policies
service,ofthe(39%);

thetransportation,

personnel(44%);

implementation
managementofor

maintenance,

promotionorschoolanddistrict­

supervisionof the foodetc.

assignment(?8%);

termination

of

staff

(28%);and discipline (A7%).

Baehr
the

(1975)

different

reportedby thetheprovided

roles

and

resultsofIndustrial

andCorsortium

data

providedbyactivitiesainformation

principals

occupational

Relationsfor

additional

perform

whenshe

analysis .conducted jointly

Center of the

University

Educational

Leadership.

nationalofsampleregarding619

outcome of the research was the following list.

Theof Chicago
study

principals.

used
One

I.

Relations with people and groups

II.

Curriculum

III.

Personnel administration

IV.

General administration

Hughes andUbben(1987)

comprise the principalship.
andthe fifth

has

to do

observed five functional

aspects

Four of these are inside the schoolwithestablishing a positive Interaction

with surrounding community.
The
ment,

inside functions include staffing and personnel develop­
pupil

and

personnel

services;

programdevelopment;

resource procurement and building management,

includingandbudgetingand maintenance.
There
withinaretwodimensions

to

these

five

functions:thethe effective management

of

the

principalship

instructional

the enterpriseencompassed

leadership(HughesandandUbben,

1987).
Threeerasof education

leadershipcharacterize

a historicalevolution of the role of principals in

the U.S.

(Goodlads,

1978).

During1950's,principals

in

U.S.

the

were

first

era,

characterizedmanagement.

Theof the school.

In

was

prior
by

principaJ

to
a

the

strongwasconcern

often

the decade after 1950,

overshadowedbyagrowing

the

for

the

instructional

principle

teacher

concerns for Instruction

emphasisonthemanagementof non-instructional functions.
The

trend

importance
still

the

of

is

now

towardinstructional

emphasisona thirderaof re-emphasizing themanagement.

non-instructional

Meanwhile

there

responsibilities

of

is
the

principal.

Leadership Styles of the Principal
Throughandthe years,

understandingoffour theoretical approaches to the analysis
leadership

have

been

developed:

psycho­Thebehavioral(personul)

approachrecognized

and sociological (situational)that.

psychologicalfactors determine leader­

ship behavior.

This approach uses both types of factors,

by

on

t;e

observed

contrasttotheconcept

considertheconcept

focusing

behaviorof

there­

theleaderinofleadership,

Halpin(1979)

ofthebehavior

thesituation.

In
proposedtowhat itimplies.

First of all,ratherthan

a posted capacity

upon

No presuppositions
ship

betweenleadertheandfocuses upon observed behavior
inferredfromthe behavior.

need to be made about a one-to-one relation­
behavior

and thus the measurement is
Using

it

leaderunderlying

personality

traitsperhaps more valid.

behavioral

at Ohio State University

andapproach,Halpinand

Wlner(1957)

developed a two-factor theory of leader

behaviors--the Leader Behavior Descriptive Questionnaire:

1.

Initiatingindelineating

structure,
theof the work groupwhich

relationshipand inpatterns of organization,refers to

the leadersbehavior

betweenoneself

members

andendeavouring to establish well-definedchannels of communication

andmethods

of procedure.

2.

Consideration,

friendship,

whichmutual trust,referstobehavior

respect and warmthinindicativeof

the relationshipbetween the leader ard the members of the group.
From these dimensions,the following quadrant relationships

wereposted,

Table

high

consideration;

high

....

that

leadership* high

on

both

as

shown

in

5,

high

initiating

structure­

Generally

researchhasdimensions

is

most

effective

achieving desired organizational and individual outcomes.
Leadership styles of orincipals:

11.

shown
in

Principal'sinleadershipterms of task-oriented

andBennett

elementary(1979)
andstyles

often

have

and person-oriented

reportedsecondarytheresults

schoolofbeenstudiedbehavior.

Morris

a

study

in

which

teachers(N=238)assessed
the supervisory behavior of either their pricipal or
instructional
supervisor.
These results were graphed onto two leadershipgrids, one devised by Halpin and the other by Blake
and Mouton(see Table 4 and Table 5).

For 12 competence areas investigatedby Morris and Bennett intheir study,

difference between teachers

ratingstat..sticallyinsignificant

ofprincipals

were

one competence area:

curriculum

for

all

but

change.

Effective PrincipalshipResearch

indicates thatsuccessful

schools have principals
who display high task-oriented behavior.
For instance, Williams
and How (1971)
studied the interrelationship between leadershipstyle, leader effectiveness and favorableness of leadershipsituation
provides(pp.

theleader

66-67).

They

with
found

influence
that

over

in

organization

members

schools

exhibiting highly
favourable leadership situations "task-oriented" leadershipstylesproduce more significant effective results.
Brookover and Lezotte(1979) reported that elementary principals in schools
registering
improvement
ional

in

leaders.

students were more likely to be assertive instruct­
Austin (1975)
in summarizing six state studies

of exemplary schools,
schools

had

noted that two characteristics of exemplaryprincipals whocreatea senseof

direction

for theschool and also foster academic expectations.

for

Venezkyandbuilding

principals

oriented.

Winfieldto(1979)
be

lik

ise

reportedachiev, -ent-oriented

the

need

or

task­

They pointed out that this need not preclude a positive
relationship between the principal and the teaching
staff.
"A
capable principal can stress achievement while
maintaingood relations with staff, parents and pupils." (p.
24)

Utz

(1972)

discerned

betweentheoverallteachers

and

the

for

production

principals

ratings

teachers

and

rate

positiveofprincipals

perception

concernbelow

significant

foraverageofeffectivenessprincipals

people.
orrelationship

Utz

poor

by

by

concern

found

that

teachers

wereperceived to place a significantly greater emphasis on concern
for production

then people.

It

from

appearstheresearch

by

Utz

that

teachers

perceive person oriented principal to be an essential character­
istic

of

effective

however,theprincipal.

Theadministrative

offices,

Miskel (1977)

studiedmay not share the same idea.

relationships

of

both

principals

leadershipsituation variables to principal effectiveness.
in(N=160)and co-workers.

variables

toward

were

the

well

as

The

performanceeffort

the

and

work

of

"high

interpersonal

were

the

Is

of
the

The situation
the

district

schoolasbuilding.

principals'

innovation

effectiveness

by

both

The results indicated that teacher

performance

climateofprincipal

teachers and supervisors.
of

level

climatevariables

perception

perception

the study were the principals

technologicalinterpersonalandThe componentsof leadership style examined
attitude

style

in

supportive

situations
and

the

where

the

principal

iscompetitively motivated but that the superordinate administra­
rated

the

more

task-oriented

more

positively thanthe moreperson oriented principals.

Miskelprograrmsin(1977)
aalso

schoolfoundbuilding

that

"the

depends

onImplementing

new

Innovation

is

more

likely

to

occur

in

has

fewer

security

needs

and

principal
innumberanofemphasis

newofmanagement technologies across the district.

that position.

13.

schools
less

where

the

experienceI-.. '..

management

er,

practicesbyprincipals

that

are deemed "effective" seem to vary according to the criterion
used in the study to identify school effectiveness, the typeofschools

the

study

were

carried

out

and

the

subjects

asked to evaluate the school effectiveness.
Waldenbecause(1980)

postulated a credibility gap in supervisionteachers,

administrators

andsupervisors

viewedsupervision differently.
Blumber('1980)

found

that

instructional

supervisors

believed their work as being very important and the teacherswith whomthey worked foundinstructioral supervision.
of little value.
Okwanaso
Nigeria(1985)

disagreedonreportedwhich

teachers

andprincipals

Insupervisory

practices applied
to were effective for the improvement of instruction in theirschools.
Thesefindings

Herrboldt (1975)
practices

that

were

similartoresults

reported

bythat teachers were often unaware of supervisory
the principals thought they were utilizing

to improve instruction In selected high schools in Montana.
Ritz and Cashellvisors

in

New

York

(1980)
State

found that teachers and super­held

divergent

views

regardingsupervisory effectiveness.

also

Stachaas (1981)

studied In the region of Geelong Australia

confirmed

teachers

that

and

supervisors

their perception of effective supervisory practice.

14.

differedinObserved

On-the-Job

Behaviors

brevity,verbal/"fragmentation,
movement,

one-to-one interactions,

Thus,

seems

it

that

even

are

characterizedcommunication,interruptions

thoughphysicaland crises.

defining

inby

the roleof the pricipalship,

researchers and practitioners all emphasize
or a primacy of the instructional leadership,

the importance
while inreality they spend most time attending what Greenfield

called "organizational

maintenance functions."

The principals
observed are preoccupied with the most immediate and pressing
situation, leaving little time for reflection or longrange
planning (AASA,
An1983).

interesting

indicating

theobserved

everyday behavior.

From

this

20

others.

elementary

wasprepared

behaviors

of

by
a

Wolcott(1973)

principal

normal(see table 3).

tablelike other managers:
with

table

can

It

be

seen

that

principals

spending most of their time

Alkireandprincipals

Doren
they

(1981)

studiedinreported
spent

59%

are

meetings
that

the

of

their

time talking or meeting with others 15% of their time writing,
12% of their time listening and 8% of their time reading.
Porter-Guthrie and others (1978)

reported that elementary

andsecondarythree

minutes.

they

could

not

noted

that

principals consciously expose

principals
The

often

completetasks

principals

tendedcomplete

immediately.

in

less

than

to

stick

with

tasks

The

researchers

themselves to

also
situ­

ations where new tasks are likely to emerge.
These
tend

to

studies

performaindicatedthatmultitude

tasks

time.

15.

principals
within

a

in
short

the

U.S.

span

of

Studies

also

indicatedthat

principals in
the U.S.
prefer to devote more of their time to instructional
leadership
activities and less time to administrativeand other tasks.
Table 4 summarizes the responses of
3,047 elementary,
secondary and other principals on a questionnaireadministeroby the State of New York Office of Education
performance
Review (1974).
This table shows that the principals spentconsiderably
more time than they preferred on administrativeand othertasks while much less time than they preferred
on instructional
leadership type of behaviors.
Sproull
portionofpeople.
many(1981)
the

found

time

Howellthat

administrator

accounting(1981)

foundformoney,

that

paper

spend

a

materials
work

major
and

consumeshours than other responsibilities.

Training and Preparation of Principals
There

is

increasing

evidencesuggesting
that
most
university programs for the preparation of
educa­
tional administrators yield limited positive
outcomes.
college andIn an earlier study,
that

years

of

ratingsofthat

numberaformalHamphill and others (1962)

preparation

effectiveness.
of

Gross

were

and

graduate courses

uncorrelated

Herriottwere

Indicated(1965)

actually

withshowedr .gatively

related to leadership skills.

Efforts toward addressing this issue of making
prir paltraining more effective include proposalof several modelsof training for instance: Lo Presti (1982)
proposed an integral
system of principal preparationand field level.
centers inthemselves.

Carmichael

implemented at the university(1982)

some cities in

noted that some principal

the US were organized by principals
These centers, are mainly around the developmentof the "self" of the Drincloals.

THE SRI LANKA CONTEXTThe Government of Sri Lanka in 1981 issued "Education
Proposals for Reform" outlining a program of structuraland curricular change aimed at facilitating more efficiency
and more equality between education offered by thebetter schools andlesser schools (Ministry of Education,1981).
This
projects
reportreformproposed(Ministryofpolicy

was

in

1984

the

operationalized

Education,

Ministry1984).

of

into

15

Education

Centraltothezones,

toreport are the following:(1)

Restructuring at the school level,(2)

Replacing

districtcircuitswithdecentralize some decision-making and adminis­
trative operations.
(3)

(4)

Formationof cluster schools,

withmore andwithlesser

and

to

share

skillsandThrough

staff

training,

toinitiative

whereby schools

better resources are clusteredschools to pool their resourcesfromschoolexperiences,encourage

principals

to

and

greater
assumemore managerial responsibilities for the school.
Reportoftheof Ed.ucation (1984)

managerial

to serve as

in

the

Ministryhas further highlighted the supervisorytasks and accountable needs.
was therefore,

reforms

The role of the principal

to be redefined in order for the principal
a change agent to (1) help implement theReform at a grassroots level and (2) facilitate the efficientmanagement of the school to achieve higher quality ofschool.

More
In

Sri

importantly,

Lankashoulditwasproposed thatchangetheir

the principals

management

orientationfrom that of an administrator to that of a manager (Fernando,
1981).
The new role of the principal has to be one that
can accommodate to the new educational administrative structure
and become an integral part of a new order of education.
A

1984

UNESCO

diagnostic

study

solicitedIt

was

proposed

that

lists

were

the inputof a number of tasks perceived school principals as essential
to their role (UNESCO,
1984) (See Table 7).

bases

to

Lanka

(UNESCO,It

orientanddesignwasthetraining

these

programs

for

to

be

used

as

in

Sri

to

"re­

principals

1984).

alsojob

observedofsupervisor .

tasks that he is

the
as

that

there

was

principal

as an"Education

the

MOE

1984

reportaneedManager"suggested:"theaccountable for needs to be redefined"

Redefining the Roles of the Principal--Management
Orientation Under Education Reform
The
of

1984

ECucation

Management

in

Sri

schoolprincipals;

Reform

Lanka

calls

specifically the

prepared
for

by

the

Ministry

redefining

therole ofreportsuggests

that

under

the new reform:
(1)

The

principals shouldberecognizeda schoolshould

as

a

first

line manager.

(2)

The

principalofbe responsible

for the preparation,

implementation,

management

controlandreviewannualplan,

additiontocurriculam

of

the

schoolimplementation,

staff evaluation and student/parent

teacherlinkages.

insupervision

Theseofsuggestions

problems

were

made

in

schools In

observed

tocounteranumberSri

Lanka withthat the principal is on the one hand a part ofproblem in management deficiency and also a part ofsolution, if the principals will reoriented their role
view

the
the
the
and

become change agents of this education reform.
The

problems

withprincipals

in

Sri

Lanka

beforethe reform were observed as the following:and"(Some)Principals do not

usuallyfunctionasmanager

the

first

line

perceive their role
of

this

Ministry.

-They
in

may be unaware and have not been adequately trained
management skills to function as managers.
As such,principals do not effectively systhesize curriculan andteaching materials
learning
the

needs

community.

be therefore

be

with

the skills of teachers to meet theof children and the development 'leeds of
The central tasks of Principals should
toeducation

process,

facilitatesthese

designaneffective

technology

organizeastructure

which

tasks

and

co-align

thesechallenges and needs of its environments."

work

for

the

functionallyefforts

to

the

(p.7)

"Some principals are content to do routine administrative
in office, attend to the new admission of children

and pay the teachers at the end of the month .... ""The

individual

schoolissubmerged

set of general marco-programmes.
of ilrst line managers

(i.e.

in

an

all-Island

The management accountability
Principals) have therefore beeneroded and diluted over the years."

19.

(p.8)

"As
each
of

such,

if

principal

theschools are to be developed as institutions,must

Ministrybewhoviewedshouldasperformof a Manager(planning,organizing,

coordinating

etc.)

be

so."

first
the

line

basic

managerfunctionsstaff development,

accountable

tothe RDEdeciding,

for

doing

(p.8)
It

Is observad "The role of the educational administratorisdrastically different fromtoday

(UNESCO,
all

and

the

1984).

The

communities

in

relations
itselfsocial revolution

varyingschool organizations,
the

very

which

has

left

(UNESCO

1984).
line

local

community,

direction,

with
the

student

behavior,

community

teaching/learning

the

and

the

process

administrator
behavior

administrator

with

with

parentsandresourcesandneeding

in

the
and

with

impactontheschool.

dependsontheleadershipandinstitutions

having

some
thus

the

contacts

teachers

students

schoolisinitialadministrators

thecurricula,principal

educationalof

has overtaken

affectedprincipal

having

back"

has

of

with

success

which

years

accepted mode of administrative

actionwith

naturetheThedirectdegrees

discipline,

andwithout a generallythat of a few

learning

environment,

outsideagenciesTheofthe principal.

Generally,

principals

of

more

"people"thanoriented.

from

the UNESCO"Moreprincipals do not provide adequate technological leader­

ship

for improving

ascurriculaminpupils in

They

task

(1984)

reportschools

illustrates a

the educationaltask

teacherthe learning process"(UNESCOfordeveloping

of

the

academic

greater

viablestaff

concern

power
in

the

Sri

The

development,

show

in

Lanka

following

quote

generalconcernof the school,

training and

for

such

;9s3istlng

1984).

publicrelationshipschool.

are

with

As

relations
key

such,

and

membersthey

tend

to overlook poor task performance on the part of their teachers.
Inadequate
checksare madeto minimuzeabsenteeism.
Onlyaminorityofprincipals

could

effectively

balanceAdministrators are Increasingly
the role of participation In management.

becoming

aware ofIs recommendedIt
the authoritarian attitude of administrators
Into more democratic and participatorystyles.
that

The

MOE

be changed

reportand the UNESCO diagnostic reportcall for a new management orientation
which Is characterized
by the following:strong Initiative
more autonomy
Democracy with staff participation
Balanced people and task orientation
Need for Principal Training
This redefinition of the role of
the Principal thenrequires several important personnel
policies; specifically,
the selection of principals andthe training of existing
principals to accommodate the needof the reform and therequirements of the new role.
Trainingofschoolshas

thus

becomeanessential

agenda In the process of reform.
The

training of principals and sub-regional
staff
in management and planning isdischarged by the Kalutara
Staff College.
The capacity of the training institution
wasdeemed Insufficient to train alarge cohort of principals
withwith new management roles
to accommodate the needsof the schools. (UNESCO, 1984).

21.

According to a World Bank

(1984)

report:"At present,

Sri Lanka does not have national training policy or strategy.
-The need for trainlng as a means of improving the performance
In the public sector has been Increasingly recognizedbythegovernment.

Unfortunately,hasbeen ad

hoc,

and

of

training

effortIs

Isseveral

times

the

training

poorly implemented.
substantial,

greater

than

the

the

effort

to

date

While

the scopemagnitude

requiredhighereducationsystemcan presently provide.
There is at the same time,

concernthat the management

training programs presently being offered cannot meet identified
and perceived needs.
These programs are uncoordinated,
duplicative
lectures

and

and

use

mostlyspecialized

training

readings.

operate the programs also do nottocarry out

training

actionneeds

researchandthetechniques

The

roles

of

1983,
schooltheGovernment
andresource allocation mechanisms,oftraining

planning

management

systemsatthetraining,

and

"The

overall

resultsbut

a greater awarenessmethodology(p.28)

introduced
supervisorychanges
staff;

In

the

Improved

established new organizational

structures at the sub-regional levels;
and

which

to determine actual management

development

principals

institutions

ashave the staff or resources

and training materials to meet the needs."
"In

such

strengthened Information

regional

reinforced

level;

personnel

Introduced

management."(p.13)

mixed,
created."of(p.13)

22.

these

experimentsof theImportancehave been
has

been

Until recently,
theirtraining

ina

instrurtions given
experience, or

educational
more

by

higheroratan

received

informalthroughmannertheirsenior colleagues

rank

In

were most concerned with.
adequate

lessadministrators

earlierthe context

having greateroffunctionsThis type of training was perhaps

time.

But

to

meet

today'sdemandsofa system of education geared to development"on-the-job" counselling does not suffice.

Pre-service

training

form of induc~ion
ments

to

on

an

managementisversity.

-The

recruitment
inof

employeeforaspecialized

subject

for

a BA

in

appoint­

specialized.

in

job.

Education

this particular program

seeks

Education
at

the

Uni­

does notprovidethe field.

It

is

also

very

new.

are

few.

It

is

also

noted

that

graduates

to

serve

graduates
theseeducation is

the

It

more

of

in

given

Induction

is

a

as

during the training.

handknowledge

numbernormally

other

However,

In-depth

now

such

training or soon after "provisional"

theprepareanissubject to performancetraining,theyhaphazard(UNESCO,

1984).

THE EMPIRICAL

STUDY

as

administrators

Objective of the Research

A
for

this

list

of

study

researchofobje.tives

Education

Reform

were
and

thus

the

identified

Principals

in

Sri Lanka:(National Institute of Education,

(1)

to

identify

to

the

1986)

extentofdeviationbytheprincipal from an administrative style of leadership
to amanagement

Its effectiveness.

oriented

leadershipandassess(2)to identify the level of enhancement of efficiency
and efectiveness of a principal who has identified
andperformed

tionalleader,

his

role

an

innovator

functions
and

as an
an

educa­

agent

forchanges.

(3)

to

study

the

differenceslevels of principals in

in

the

performance

their synthesis of curriculam

and teaching rationales with the skills of teachers
to carry out effective teaching-learning processes.
(4)

to
has

identify

howinstillededucationalfarskillsthemanagement

valuesawareness,andcareertraining

attitudes

development

inandmanagement practice.
(5)

to study the types of resistance faced by principals
to innovation and change,
the management ofinnovation

andchangeandtheirimpacton

the organizational developme.-,t.
(6)

to identify the attitude change,andorganizational

supportrole differentiation

broughtsystem by
the school cluster and its contribution to enhancethe efficiency and effectiveness of the cluster
principal

A

numberofand principals of schools.

specific questionsof objectives and addressed in
1.

Who

are

the

were

derivedfromelementary

schoolprincipals

What do these principals do?
A.

list

In

Sri

the empirical study:

Lanka?

2.

thisWhat are the principals role orientation?

B.

What

are

the

principals

perceived

practice

day-to-day

managementof

their role functions?
C.

What

are

the

principals

practice?

3.

D.

What are these principals'

Are

there

personal

leadership styles?

characteristics

ofaprincipalaprincipal

more effective?
4.

Are these management

practice that makes

more effective?
5.

What are the effects of training on the principal's
management

6.

Do

behaviors?

principalsofdifferent

types

of

schoolshave

different types of management behaviors?
7.

Does cluster status of the school affect the management
behavior and leadership styles of the principal?

Research

designhas

been

described

byCummings,

Chapter2.

Tnstruments

Three instruments were used to collect data for this study:
1.

The Principal
chapter.
Principal's
today

Questionnaire:

personal

operations,

Described

characteristics,
principal's

25.

in

previous

pricipal's

trainingday­

experiencethe cluster status and the type of schools,

and the selectedschool outcomes are obtained from this questionnaire.

2.

The Principal Management Orientation/Practice Scale.
This scale was constructed specifically for this research.

Statements about job-related tasks of principals were solicitedbytheresearchers

duringof Education officials,aworkshop

with

the

Ministry

mainly education officers and research­ers.

The statements were solicited by asking the participants
toresponddo intoquestion:Whatshouldtheprincipal

order to carry out the Education Reform In Sri Lanka?

Morethrough
as

the

than

this

the itemonehundredexercise.

These

pool to constructstatements

werestatements

wereobtainedthena questionnaire withused

response

alternatives attached.

Likert
For thetypeoforientation

response

portion,their degree of agreement
of

what

portionaprincipal

asks

the

the subjects waswithshouldsubjectthe stated task
do.

to

rate

of practicing the task listed.
item

indicates

morealternatives

The
their

were

used.

asked to rate
as a function

perceived
perceived

practice
frequency

A higher score of an orientationagreement

with

the

statement;

a

high

score on the practice item meaning more frequent practice.
Thisschoolquestionnaire

principals

in

was

the

pre-tested

Colomboon

Region.

150

elementary

50

items

with

high variance were selected for the Management Orientation/
Practice Scale used on the National Sample.

Results
factoranalysis.

proportion
loading
of

of

the

NationalThefactorofvariance(largerthanfactoranalysis.

(24%)

.40)

that

were

subject

to

to

the

most

Items withhigh

contribute

was selected.

were

This

Samplesubjected to a second

secondfactoranalysisaroundyieldedtually clear dimensions.

(See Table 9).

Sum of the scoreson each dimension was obtained for each individual principal
on

both

the orientation andthe practice of the tasks listedon the dimension.

Using
of

the

principals

medium

was

as

the

constructed

dividing
forthepoint,roleatypology

orientationofthe principal.

3.

The Leader Behavior Descriptive Questionnaire
To

Leaderidentify

Behavior

theprincipal's

Descriptive

to five teachers randomly

leadership

Questionnair3

wasstyle,

theadministeredselec! d form each school sampled.

A typology for the leadership style has been constructedbyHalpin,andconsideration.

twodimensions(1957)

forthedimensionsof initiating structure

Scores of individual principals on these

were

also obtainedtoobtainthe leadershipstyle of the principals sampled.

A conceptual

Framework

Data collection and analysis were guided by a concep­
tual framework

Measurement

presented in

and

Fig.

2.

operationalization

terms

are

prestedonordinalorintable 9.

Data Analysis

Where

the

data

were

collected

above

scales, means were used to describe the results of a category,otherwise frequency distribution and percentages were used.

27.

To

ascertain

depending
was
IV

on

the

categorical,
wasordinaldifferences

causedbyindependent

variable(IV)

one-way

analysis

above,

correlation

or

was

certainfactors,

where

the

used;

.. hierecoefficients

or

iV
the

linearregressions were used.

RESULTSA Profile of the Princlpels
The
a

wide

273

ranc,

of theSriof

Lankanpersonal

researchers

wasprincipals

sampledpossessedOnehypothesis

characteristics.

thatcertainpersonal

characteristicsof the principals will make a difference intheir management

behaviors.

brieflytheThe

personal

description

characteristics

includetheprincipal's

in

field

of education,

the

that

follows

cnoseneducational

toinvestigate

background ,personal

explains

dimensions

which

experienceandpresent

professional status.

Personal Characteristics

76 of the sampled principals were male 24 .were female.
half of the principals lived within three kilometers

Over
of

the

schooloftheprincipals

were

under

where

they

were

posted.

46

years

old.

was

thirtyyears

ofprincipal

was 72 years old.

Education,

Training

There

was

Sri

Lankanheldadvancedcollegedegrees.

awideprincipals

graduate

degrees;degrees

age,

range

of

The
Only

and

the

4.8% ofage

2.9% ofthem

oldesteducational

sampled.

mediumsampledlevels amongtheprincipals

Ph.D.,M.A.

or

M.S.C.

34.8% held

and

29.7%

held

0

or

level

GCE

Experience

The number of years the Sri Lankan principals workedasteachers

beforeto34

howeveryears,

becoming
theprincipals

meanvariednumber

of

from

years

zero

was

4.1

143 principals had no experience as teachers.

The principals

also

had

post

they

were

a

wide

one

had

the

at

which

of thedata collection.

The

had

been

at

present

school

total

to

21

years.

attheir

workedIninthe timemonthyears.

experience

serving at

principals
ofrange oftheir

Half of thepresent

this category,schoolfromsampled

for

less

a

principals
than

three

42 cases were missing.

Service Statustoa

Sri Lankan principals are ranked in

two ways; according

civil

to

hve been
Thereinserviceranking

permanently or

are six

andaccordingtemporarily

different

whether

assigned to their post.

civil service rankings a

Sri Lanka may attain to.

SLEAS I

rank.

SLEAS

II

and SLEAS

III

and

Principal'sService I,

II

is

III

principal

the highest possible

fall below
and

they

are

the first category
lower

ranks

than

distributed

acrosstheth-: SLEAS ranks.

The
range

of

principals
ranks

sampled

and

the

were

medianrankingwasthelowest,Principal's Service III.

The other type of ranking divides principals accordingtowhetherthey

arepermanently

posted,whetheran acting principal or a performing

principal.

of

of

the

Principals-Approximately

held

14% of

the

the

post

they

are

The majority

permanent

principal.

principals were Acting

principals

and approximately 23% were Performing

29.

principals.

The Management Typology and Patterns of Practice
The

two

dimensions

identified

orientation

scale

correspondtoreformaselucidated

by

MOE

the

and

the

resembletheemphasismanagementof

Education

education

Reformreportreportreform.

In

addition,these two dimensions

dimensions

of

the

of

suggested In American

of

1984

the

1986

Sri Lanka's education
also

the

In

the

in

It

is

felt

what

the

principal

by

the

role

World

the

Bank

on

principal

literature on the principal.

that

these empiricallyderived

does

role

definethedimensionsof a principal
corresponding to the emphasis of the education in Sri Lanka
which calls for decentralized decision
making and moreautonomous school management.
Principals'

management orientation/practiceTable 10 presents the descriptive statistics of management
orientation of this sample of principals in
Sri Lanka.
Fig. 3 presents these principals results on Initiating work
structure,

Fig.

5

presents

results

incurriculam

4

presents
onManagement

managementon executive functions.

resultsandonconsideration,

Orientation

Fig.

6

Fig 7 and Fig.

Fig

on

leadershippresents

information

8 present the perceived

practice on these two dimensions of management orientation.
These

descriptive

information

presentsaprofileof the role and the practice of the principals in Sri Lanka.
Of interest in
this profile are that: our principals areverysimilar

LBDQ

in

to

that

the administrators
theyscoredstudiedsimilarly

on

in
the

structure scale and the consideration scale.
slightly.

higherintheconsideration

30.

US

initiation

with
of

They are however,scale,

their scores on the initiating structure scale.

thecomparedtoThe orientation
has beenthrough this study

used to establish a typology with which to classify

principals
thescales constructed

role

in
of

terms
a

educational

of

their

principal,

reform.

cognitivecorresponding

(See

Fig.

8).

understanding

of

the

of

to

Using

emphasis

this

typology,

we have classified the principals into four categories.

Similar typology can be constructed using the initiationof structure/consideration scale and the practice of curriculum
management and executive function dimensions.

It

isnoted inFig.

displayedthat

9 where a bar graph of the distri­butionisType I,

20.38% into Type II 27.39% into Type III and 28.66%

23% oftheprincipals

fell

into

into Type IV.
Analysesprincipals
types

of

variance

identified

differinselected

that this typology isprincipals.

Itindifferent

management

orientation

theindicating

outcomesoftheschools

school,witha useful way of describing and classifying

also

found

that

principals

types also differ significantly inbehaviors as well as in(Tablethat(See table 11)wasdifferent

withrevealedclassified

into

their management

their management of daily operation.

12)
Principals'

service status does

principals

understanding

theunder education

reform.

of

not

their

make a differencerole asprincipals(Table 13).

There are small but statistically significant differences
across the gender of the principals on management orientations.
The female
functionprincipals areandslightlylowerslightlyon(See table 14).

31.

the

higher on

the executive

curriculam

management.

Locations of schools also present marginal differ­ences in

Effects

the management orientations (see Table 15)ofManagement

Practiceon

SchoolEffect-venessMeasures:

Using
that

multiple

Leadershippredicttherearessiun

Behaviors

perceive:ir1&ysi ,of theit

was foundprincipal's

positively

effectiveness

of

the

schools.

(see Table 16)

Using
that

both

linear regression

principal's

behavior

andanalysis,practice

Curriculumon

was revealedit

Executive

Management

Functionbehaviorscar,

predict the effectiveness of the school.

Management Practice of Different Types of Schools
Management Orientation and Cluster Status
in

Cluster Status does not make a significant difference
the curriculum management dimensions of the manage­

ment

orientation

dimension,slightlythemeasure.
rural

lower.

schoolsThis

the clusters

having to

in

the

and

clusterprincipal

themselves,one

differennt

types

Executive

modified

impliescoordinate withtobeperceiveadifferent

that

requireschools

in

terms

of

initiating

the

type

1

school

the

of

to

the

functionfortheshowedthat

wereperceived

structure

principals

and
who

consistently
were

their

more

considerate

active in

being

and

with

scoredperceived

initiation of structure for the workofdifferently

consideration

They

as

executive

principals

higher on both dimensions.
subordinate

schoolsother schools

subordinate

less

are

the dimension.

analysesof

Functionclusters

thathavingfunctions as delineated in

Statisticaltheinresultincluster

In

by
more

at schools.

ofPrincipals
theirpractice

the

of

of

types

differentrole

expected

school

also

the

of

differintheprincipal;

principals at type 1 schools perceived

themselves as carryingout

the executive function

theexpected

tasks

more

often

in

dimension;they,

the same interms of curriculum management

however,

perceive themselves as approximately
the schools.

inPrincipal's Daily Operations

In
Lanka

order

and

to

the

examinetheconsequences

behaviorofofvariables

survey.

inreforms,

indexesmanagementof management practices were developed.
ofprincipals

The indexes consisted

from

the

principal'squestionnaire

Utilizingtheindexeswasdifferences initprincipal's management

Sri

and

possible topractices inschoolsummarize
the schools

sampled.

The

indexesof the principal
The
a

paper

strongschool.

developed

as a front

describes

more

those

of

principalapersonthequalityless thosemanager

a

the

The

activityineducationofplanning,

Initiative

andmaking

the

who

in

his/herareadministrator/caretaker

and

role

of

the

such

as

those

of

management.

Instructional
capabilities

principal

are

also

seen

order to increase school quality and efficiency.

Anotherpartthemanager's

responsibility

isacollaborative

process

withstudents

more

has

principal

domains

development,

as important in

of

new

curriculum

decisionas

dutiesanofmanager.

requiredconcept

thereason,includethethe White Paper.

For

to

to

in

in

this

accordingline manager

influence

seen

as

were

of

teachers,todevelopandthe community which leads to an awareness of social problems,
needs and resources inEachvariable

of

the

which

is

the environment.

indicatorsaincombination

the survey and/or questionnaire.
todeterminewhether

the

the
of

index

is

variables

In this way,principal

involved

itacomposite

drawn

from

was possible
him/her

self

The

five

variablesinthemanagement

index

and

a

brief description of each are as follows.

1.

Shared Decision-Making

This indicator measures the extent to which the principal
includes school staff members in2.

decision making.

Instructional Management

This indicator measures the extent to which the school
principal

observes

andcontributes

towards

fessional development through consultation,teachers

pro­teaching demonstra­tions or other means.

3.

Planning

This indicator measures the extent to which the princi­
pal develops a formal

4.

plan for the school.

Student Welfare Actions

This
principal

indicator
involves

vities suchasindicates
him/her

meeting

the

self

with

extentintostudent

parents and

which

the

welfareacti­

developing

sportsclubs.

5.

Curricular Development

This indicator measures the extent to which the princi­
pal

active

is

could

take

in

the

curriculum

formof organizing

soliciting

teachercurriculum

materials in

input

to

were

was

computedrelationships(see Table in

the

Such

a curriculum

curriculumoractivity

committee,
developing

the school.

A correlation matrix
indexesdevelopment.

inincluding each of the management
order

betweenappendix).

the

to

determinemanagement

whethertherecharacteristics

Positive relationships were foundPlanning and Student Welfare.

The results of the correlations

indicate

high

the

that

principals

managementscores inpracticewithindexesother management

mean

may

scores

in

have

high

not

one ofmean

practices.

The following relationships between personal character­isticsandmanagement

practices

were

way analysis of variance techniques:1.

Male and

on

all

of

Welfarefemalethewhere

for Curriculum
was

.4

at

the

had

indicatorsaDevelopment

highersame

except

mean

score

where the mean

higher.

All

of

the

relationships.001

except

for

the

level

using

one­

(see Table 19)

principals have themanagement
males

found

mean

scoresforStudent

by

.2

and

score for. males
weresignificant

Instructional

Management

trainedmanagement

indicator.

2.

Principals

who

have

score

higherallmanagement

for

been

results are significant at the .001

inindicators.

Principals

meanscores than those who live farther away.

live

close

of

have

higherthelevel.

3.

who

All

to

the

schoolThe results

are statistically significant.

4.
forPermanenttheprincipals

Instructional

Permanent

and Acting

Welfare which is

have

the

highestManagement,

andPlanning

meanscoresindicators.

principals score the same for Student.1 higher than that for Performing

princi­pals.

Actingprincipals

and Curriculum

Performing

score

highestfor

Decision

MakingDevelopment.

principals

the management

the

have

indicators.

thelowestscores

for

all

of

5.
in

Principals

who

are

from

the

districtwhich they work as principals have higher mean manage­

ment

practicescoresMaking indicator.

with

6.

The

most

lower

mean

scoresThose

principals

highestmean scores.

Therehighlytheisexceptionat the .001

educatedprincipals

for

all

management

who

have

of

the

passedThese allnomanagement

of

the

Decisionlevel except

and Student Welfare (.009)

cant variation at the .001

7.

the

Significance isfor Decision Making (.072)

oforiginally

GCE,(Ph.D)

have

indicators.

A..,-.,have

the

have statistically signifi­

level.

consistent
indicators

relationshipandabetweenparticular

level

all
of

servicestatus.

All

of

the

indicators

havesignificant

variation

at

.001

level.

Highestmean

scorestheare

as follows:

Decision Making-

SLEAS I

Student Welfare-

SLEAS III

Planning-

SLEAS I

Instructional Mng.

-

Principal Service II

Curriculum

Development -SLEAS II

Outcomes

with

The

managementsevenoutcomequestionnaire inpracticevariables

the

drawn

from

were
the

comparedprincipal'sorder to determine whether certain manage­

ment practices were related
knowing

indexesmanagement

to certain outcomes and whether

practices,

school outcome values.

35.

one

could

precicttheCorrelations between

the outcome measures and princi­

Management

indexespal's

Practicewere

calculated.

The

results are as follows

The variable q055 measured the principal's estimation
student achievement relative to national competition.

ofThe

management

Index

Sharedpositively and strongly withAnotherprincipal'stoMaking,Development
outcomeofresources.

and

q056

The

a

correlated

measureofachievement

management

Instructional

measure.

is

student

The

Planning

Makingthe q055 outcome.

measureestimation

schoolDecision

outcome

Decision

relativepracticesManagement,

theSharedCurriculum

correlated

positively

correlation

between

with
the

the

index

Shared Decision Making and the outcome measure was strongly
correlated
while
the other
associations were weaker.
Q057 is
of

the

was

school'smodestly

Makingoutcome measure of the principal's estimation

andco-curricular

positively
weakly,but

activities.

correlated
positively

indexes for Planning and Curriculum

Another
estiriation

of

other

schools

index

Share

with

outcomemeasure,schoolinTheoutcomeSharedDecisioncorrelated

with

the

Development.

Qc.38

is

the

principal's

community

relations

ir,

relationthenation.

The

Decision

Makingandmanagement

Curriculumtopractice

Development

are strongly and positively related to the school community
relations outcome measure.

36.

The

principal's

effectivenesswasoutcome.

The

Decision

Makingthisoutcomeestimation

utilizedasmanagement
was

and

the

anotherpractice

moderately

the

of

index

school'smeasureindexes

positivelyforoverallofschoolfor

Sharedcorrelated

curriculumwithdevelopment

was modestly correlated with the outcome.

In

the questionnaire,

principals were asked to appraisethe daily student attendance at their school.
measurecorrelated

indexes

Sharedand Curriculum

strongly

Decisionwith

Making,arewasstrongly

practice

Management

Development.

disciplined

Making andmanagement

Instructional

The principal's estimation
who

the

The resultingof the number of students

by

the

principal

associated

with

the

CurriculuminaindexesDevelopment.

typicalSharedweek

Decision

A positive but

weak

association between the outcome and Instructional Management
was also observed.

The

Management

variables
and

were

analyzedtwo

significant

groupsofindexesutilizingcorrelation techniques.

statisticallythe

PracticeItandanalysis

was foundstrongvariables.

andInnovation
of

that

variance

there wererelationships

The

following

betweenconclusions

may be made based on the analysis:
1.

Those

ment

activities:

principals who

Instructional
mentation

the following

Student

WelfarePlanning,

Managementofreported

more

were

associatedimprovementsinmanage­Actions,withstudent

theandimple­

conditions

at their schools.

2.

Those

ment

activities:

Planning,

Student

WelfareandInstructional

Management,

wereassociatedprincipals

implementation

who

reported

the following manage­of teacher development projects.

Activities
with

the

Thoseprincipals

ment activities:
ional
in

who reported

Planning,

Management,

the following

manage­Student Welfare Actions,were associatedwithInstruct­

more Improvements

teaching materials.

4.

Those

principals

ment activities:
management,

who reported

Planning,

were

the following

manage­Student Welfare and Instructional

associated

with

more

improvements

incocurricular activities facilities.

5.

Principals

whoreportedthefollowing

management
Instructional

activities:

Planning,

Student Welfare Actions,Management,

were

with

associatedmore

improvementsinstudent guidance practices.

6.

Principals

activities:

who

reported

Planning

associated

with

and

takingthefollowing

Instructional

steps

to

management

Management,

improveschoolwere

community

relations.

Staff Training

Fig.

10

and

principals

who

have

indicated

that

Fig.

11

present

received

63.06

of

the

management

theInformation
training:

principals

whoto the question on training reported that theytraining.

Fig.

received

training,

the Staff

CollegeattrainingatCollegegroup,
Training

11 indicates that among

Staffreported
Centers,

1.05% reported

25.26% of

Maharagama,received
14.74%

athave received

those who

received

Tarakula,

received

at46%,

Districttraining

Fig.

responded

reported

training

12.63% reported

training

training abroad.

38.

them

on

the

at

receivedlargestManagement
locallyandTablepresents a frequency distribution of training

by different training programs.

Summary of Effects of Training
(1)

Using

linearregression

with

as

dependent

variables,

it

does

effectsomemanagement
wasmanagementfoundmeasuresthat

behaviors.

training

However,has very small effect or inverse effect on management
orientation.

(2)

Strongpositive effects areobservedon thepracticeof executive function and initiation structure dimensionof management behaviors.

(3)

With the exception of PC7,

training has little effects

on the daily operation of the principal's management
practice.

Management Behaviors and Cluster Status
Rural

and

status

makes

urban

differences

differences

combined

in

the

with

the

management

behavioursof these principals:

urban school principals not inperceived themselvespracticing

culum

management

perceived

themselves

executive functions.
ruralbehavior,

schoolsareless otherruralschoolsaspracticing

more

In

terms

higheston

on initiation of structure.

39.

of

clusterclusterthanthe curri­

not

in

clustir

frequently

leadershipconsiderationstyles,
while

the
the

lower

Principals

in

rural

modifiedclusterschools

reportmore management

practices of the reform measures compared

to

rural

principals

urban

in

schools

notinschoolsanotcluster

in

a

(with

cluster

the

and

in

exceptionofthe Shared Decision Making Index).

Principals inmodifiedclustermanagement

practicesthanschools

principals

reportmore

inoriginal

theactive'classic'clusters

createdbefore the 1984 reforms.

The
toindicatewithacomposite

the

stage

that

reducing

beaformationofaddingofaclusterprincipal

kinds

management

different

providing
the

more

of

task

the

schoolprincipals.

differentby this change in

well

the

one
while

perceived

Theremanagement

structure.

providepractice,

as

of

the

to

structure

as

in

seem

seem

especiallyorientedfunctionruralfindings

clusters,

executive

trade-off

as affected

abovementioned

theconsideration
to

the

that

for

by

of

seems

behaviors

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

that

Our

profile of

they

are

mostlyschool.

They

to thethe principals

in

Sri

Lanka indicates

and

live

in

close

are older(mean

age=46).

male

proximity
Mostofthem hold college degrees
The

principal

twodimensions

Sri

Lanka.

ofemphasis.

of

role

principal,
be

an

who

the

of

role

study

of

derivedprincipals

incorrespondto the Education

They also correspondto the dimensions

theprincipal

studies

in

U.S.

The

to

finding,

foremostly

shouldaccording

instructional

coordinatesorientation

perceived

These dimensions

Reformthemanagement

ourleaderwith(firsthisthefactorteaching

inourstaff,

finding)

looking

into

the diverse needs of students and assigns tasks to teachers
appropriate

to

their

talents.

accordingtoeffective

principal

can

then

By

schoolhelp

toperforming

literaturedevelop

a

these

in

tasks,

the

U.S.

a

conditionoftheschool conducive to student learning.
The
tasks

secondpertaining

This dimension
identified inInisdimension,

Executive

tomanagement

generalalso similar

the U.S.,
theschool.

calls

for

the

recognition

line"

manager of the education
autonomy

for

In

the

Sri

of

the

principal

system.

principals

Theinrecentreformas"firstdecision making

Executive

dimension

our

study

emphasis.

41.

from

the

reform calledThe

emergedfunctionsthe U.S.

and other managerial functions.
whichschool.

the chief administrative

Lanka,

thecontains

theto the managerial

the principal is

in

more

of

school principal literature in

officerfor

Function

Function

confirms

thisThese dimensions were obtained onrelateditems

Education

inbyofficials

of

the

two

considerations:

Ministryof

Sri Lanka.

This
(1)

generated

the pool of task­

methodwas

basedthat the practitionersof their tasks

have a more

and therefore

to their actual practice;

can

(2)

intimate knowledge

prove thecontent

closerthat the tasks of a principal

vary

according to the cultural

Item

content,

therefore,

on

and

shouldorganizational

context.

generatedpeoplebeby

who are more familiar with the context.

All

fifty

administered

items
for

identified

both

the

from

pre-test

principal's

results wereroleorientationand their perceived practice of the task.
Factor analysis was also attempted with the perceived
practice results.
However, with numerous iterations nosolutioncanbereached.

to

items

are

not

the

This

related

to

means

that

each

other

to

resultfromthatthe responses
be

group

into a limited number of factors.
This

is

a

very

responses

totheorientation

many

studies

different

indicating

thequestion.

There

difference

between

of

the

has

been

cognitionand practice.

There

are

role expectation

factors
which

other
affectthan
thepractical

obstacles

andcited aspotential

factors which

personalanunderstanding

performacne
motivationofof therole

have allbeen

contribute tothediscre­pancy.

Itofisirterestingobservationalof the principals.

tostudies

take

this

concerning

result
the

with

daily

a

group

activities

TheseMintzberg
does

studies,(1973)

often

applying

founddeviates

activities).

It

is

that

from

a

method

what

what

the

he

also observed

developed

principal

wishes

from

to

by

actuallydo(idealthese observational

data that the daily activities of the principals are charac­terizedbyissuesratherhaps,

this explain the discrepancy

fragmentation,thanbrevity,

being

addressing

reflective andimmediate

systematic.

Per­

between the orientation

result and the perceived practice result.

This

perhapsalso

explains

the

lack

of

systematic

relationship among different items of perceived practice.
Results obtained on the perceived leadership behavior
indicate
their

that

U.S.

initiating

theprincipals

sampledscoredcounterparts,

butslightly

structuretheconsiderationandhighersimilar

to

both

the

on

scalesofthe

L BDQ.

They

arehowever,

perceived

as

being

more

con­

siderate than they are iitiating structure.
Thisempiricallythe UNESCO
officials(1984)

arederivedresults

corresponds

toobservation that the Sri Lanka education

more

often

"peopleoriented"

than

"'ask

oriented."

Effective

schoolof an effective schoolstudiesis

proposemore "task

that

the

oriented"principal--idstrives

Sri

Lanka

to achieve academic goals.

The
is

thus

cosidered

style
a

of

littleeffective

leadershipdifferent
in

the

of

principals

from

those

U.S.

This

of

in
the

principals"peopleoriented"

nature of leadership style no doubt reflects a long standing
cultural tradition.

This
Sri

however,Is,

Lankanprincipals

as comparedto U.S.

leadershipstyles and

not
are

a

weakness

also

norm.

in

in

itself.

generaltask

Theoriented

The intricate dynamics between

school achievement

has

yet to

reach

more

con­

a definitive conclusion.
Teachers

in

the

U.S.

often

perceivesiderate principal as more effective.
who view a more "task oriented"

It

is

a

the supervisors

teacher as more effective.

Only whenitharmonious

interpersonal

relations,asubstandard

performances.

Then

being

"considerate"

be­

the

day-to-day

tasks

comes

to a situation,

in

order

to maintain

principal

overlooks

comes a problem.
The
also

study

of

management

revealed interestingofresults.

The list of management
practice was constructed to list the behaviors of principals
that correspond to the Education Reform.
These
close
AC

to

results

school,indicate

are

that

permanent

principals

principals,

reported higher levels of performance on

whopossess

live
GCE,

these practiceindicators.

Management
ciatedwithmorepractices were
Innovations

found Inandmost cases asso­

more

improvementsofthe school.
Taken
the

together,principal

thesereported

results indicate thatengaging

more effective the principal is

in

in

those

the more

activities,theterms of school improve­

ment and innovation.

Interesting results were obtained with cluster status.
Principals inclusters reported less role orientation to
executive function.

The

presenceofaclusterprincipal

seem to produce a less need for executive function.

Schools

clusters

Iningeneralreportedlower

levelsof practice In curriculum management and executive function.
The

principal's

arehigher on

ture.
of

These

clusterleadership

non-cluster

but lower on

results

toelement

out ofpersonal

relationstheinconsideration

somehowschools instyles

seem

taken

away

the rural
is

imply

schools.

perhaps

of

the

the

This

more

initiating struc­

that

some

schools

interpersonalerosionevident

formationinininter­

theruralclusters with a cluster principal.

Thisfindingis,notsurprisingly,

consistent

with

list

advantages

anddisadvantages

of

re­

an

(January

1988)

Bridges-Sri

time

do

have

portedofinearlierclusters

Lankareport.

At
on

the

the

present

academicachievement

the effectivenesssized that
of

of

of

the cluster

the clusteredstudent

welearning

nottheinformation

schools

practice.

It

to
Is

assesshypothe­schools will produce higher level

in

spite

of

a

lesser"considerate"school climate.

Training effects are relatively small;training In most cases istionhowever,havingbetter than having no training.

At the present time,

we do not have detailed informa­

about

the

the

content

ofcurriculum

of

the

training

programs.

Examination of training results seem to indicate

that

Is

there

a

lack

of

correspondence

betweenwhat

thetraining programs and what are expected of the principals.
Itwould be an interesting study to investigate the curricula

of

these

training

programs

of

these

programs

to

see

if

between the curriculum-!;-:dthe expected outcomes.

and

the

there

is

expectedaoutcomes

correspondence

This
of

information

designingwould

futurebetraining

development of principals in

mostvaluable

programs

for

in

terms

management

Sri Lanka.

A lack of correspondence between the training programs;
agenda andthe expectationof whatdowouldsuggost

that

close

developed

Letween

those

and

implementation

who are in

of

a

staff

by

the

are

effective
close

adoptedresults

thatincoordination

are

has

to

chargeofdesignanddivisionsintraining

these

conclusion,different

different

evaluationbyprincipals should

the

be

charge of administration of the principals.

The above mentioned

A

who

the

of

types

managementisfurther confirmedoftraining

practice

measures.

ofcurriculayieldvaluablethedifferent

types

different

programs

will

iformation on design and implementation

programof future training.

A

Note

on

the

Research

Design

Proposalandfor

FutureStudies:(1)

Schooloutcomes

items

drawn

terms

of

measured

from

the

principalsof school.

in

the

current

Principal's

perception

of

study

are

Questionnaireinselectedoutcomes

Most of the western literature on effective

principalshipused

student's

academicachievements

as the outcome measure.
Itisproposed that future studies inpalship

will

use

(1)

and

the

list

of

(2)

principals

surveyed

student
schooleffective princi­

academicgoals

as outcome

achievement

identified

by

the

measures of effective

schools and effective principalship.

(2)

A systematic program evaluation on staff training.

(3)

Correlation

analysesandlinearwere used inanalyzingrelationshipThisanalysistype

betweenofvariables

The analyticalficanceoraremethods

They

on

of

other types

relationshipoptimalthat

lengththeusedcan only

and

not

yield
such
of

a

For instance,
might

of

(2)

additive.

test the signi­
linearany

informationascurvilinear

bracketIta bracket

principal'son effective principalship.

47.

be

relationships"presumed"ofexistence

there

variables.

that

relationships,

thebetweenlineardotwo variables.

to assumeanoranalyses(1)

non-significancerelationships.

betweenassumesregression

years

is

effectreasonableeffectini.e.,service

This

type

of

analysisthe size of the sample.
ing

togroupsdifferent
were

often

When

predictor
small

is

also

making48.

sensitive

todata were regrouped accord­variables,

results unreliable.

very

the

sizes

correlational

of

the

coefficientReference
Achilles, C.M.& Keedy, J.L. (1983) Principal norm setting asacomponent of effective schools, William K. National Forumof
Educatrional adminstration and supervision, 1(1)Austin, G. (1981) Exemplayr schools and their identification"New
Direction for Testing and Measurement, 10, 31-48.
Baehr, M.E. (1975) A national occupational analysis of theschoolprincipalship. Chicago: Illinois: Manpower research anddevelopment dividions, Industrial Relations Center UniversityofChicago (ERIC ED 116)
Block, A. (1982) The Role of elementary school Principals:
summary of research, Arlington, Va. 22209: Educational
Service Inc.

A

Bridges-Sri-Lanka Team (1988) Bridges Project annual national
workshop report Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Brookover, W.B. & Lezotte,(1979) Changes in school
characteristics coincident with changes in student
achievement.
Occassional Paper No. 17, East Lansing
Michigan: the institute for research on teaching, Michigan
State University, May, 1979.
Brookover, W.B. & Lezotte, _(1979) School social systems andstudent achievement: Schools can make a difference. New
York: Praeger.
Blumber, A. (1980) Supervision and teachers, a private cold
war,
Berkeley, California: McCutchan Pub., C.,
Carmichael, L. Leaders as learners: a possible dream, Educaitonal
leadership, 40(1), 58-59.
Drake, T.L. & Roe, W.H. (1986)
McMillian Publishing Co.

The principalship, New York:

Edmonds, R.R. (1971) Effective schools for the urban poor.
Educational Leadership 37: 15-24.
Fernando, P.N.M. (1981)
reform.

White paper on education proposals forGreenfield, W.D. (1983) A review of research on theprincipalship: 1971-1981 Washington, D.C., National
Institute for Education.

Gross, N. and Herriott, R.E. (1965) Staff leadershipin public
schools: A sociological inquiry. New York: Macmillan.
Halpin, A.W. (1966)
York: MacMillian.

Theory and research in administration. New

Halpin, A.W. (1957) The leader behavior and the effectivenessofaircraft commanders, In R.M. Stogdill, & A.E. Coons(Eds)
Leader Behavior: Its description and measurement.
Columbus,
Ohio, Ohio State University.
Halpin, A.W. & Warner, B.J.A. (1957) A factorail
study of theleader behavior descriptive questionnaire. In R.M.
Stcgdill, & A.E. Coons (eds) Leader behavior its descrirtionand measurement. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University.
Hamphill, J.K., Griffiths, i).E. & Federickson, N.
(1962)
Administration performance and personality: A studyof theprincipal in a simulated elementary
school. New York:Bureau of publications, Teachers College Columbia
University.
Herrboldt, A.A. (1975) The relationship between theperceptionsof principals and teachers concerning supervisory
practicesin selected high schools of Montana, Doctoral dissertation:
Montana State University.
Howell, B. (1981)
Leadership, 38(4)profile of the principalship, Educational
333-336.

Hughes, L.W. and Ubben, G.C. (1987) The principal:
Creative
leadership for effective schools. Newton, MA: Allynand
Bacon.
Katz, D. Khan (1978) The social psychology of organizations,
2nd
Ed. New York: John Wiley and sons.
Kmetz, J.T. & Willower, D. (1982) the elementary
schoolprincipal's managerial behavior, Educational Administrative
Quarterly, 18(fall), 62-78.
Lipham, J.M. & Rankin, R.E., Hoeh, J.A., Jr. (1985)
principalship concepts competencies and cases.
LoPresti, P.L. (1982),
Principal.

61(4),

The

32-34. Building a better principal,

Lorti, D. (1975) School teacher: A sociological Study,
Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Martin, J & Willower, D. (1981) The managerial behavbiorof highschool principal's behavior Educational Administrative
Quarterly, 17 (Winter), 69-80.

McCurdy, J. (1983) the role of the rincipal in effective
schools:
problems & solutions. Arlington, Virgina: America Associationof School Administrators.
Ministry of Education of Sri Lank (1984) Report on
Management
Reform in the Ministry of Education, Sri Jayawardenapura,
Sri Lanka.
Mintzberg. H. (1973) The nature of managerial work,
New York:
Harper & Row.
Miskel, C.G. (1977) Principal's attitude toward work
workers, situational factors perceived effectiveness and co­andinnovation effort, Educational Adminstrative Quarterly,
13,55-71.
Morrow, J.E.: Gilley, W.F.: Russell, T.E. & Strope,
J.L.
Improving teacher effectiveness: perception of principals,(1985)
Education, 105(4), 385-390.
Morris, V. & Bennett, R.M. (1979) Leadership styles
of principals
and supervisors: an applicatin of the grid technique.
College Station, texas: College of Education, texas
A&M
University, (ERIC ED 207 178).
Mulcahy, M.J. & Rambaud, M.F. A process view of theand training of principals to raise school quality. significanceTermpaper, graduate school of Education, Harvard university.
National Institute of Education of Sri Lanka (1986)
A proposal
for Education Management Research, Author, Maharagama,
Sri
Lanka.
Office of Educational Review, State of New York (1974)
The publicschool principal: An overview. Albany, NY: Author.
Okwuanaso, S.I. (1985) Teachers' and principals' perceptionsofeffective supervisory practice in Nigerian secondary
schools, Education, 105(4), 44-450.
Page, J.A. & Page, F.M. (1985) Principal's perceptionrole and the perceived effectiveness of their academic of their
preparation, College Student Journal, 1985 19(1),2-16.
Ritz, W.C.& Coshell, J.C. (1980) Cold war between
supervisors andteachers, Educational Leadership, (October, 1980)
77-78.
Rutter et al (1979) Fifteen thousand hours, Cambridge,
MA:
Harvard University Press.
Scott-McDonald, K (1986) Dimensions of principal effectiveness:A
review, Qualifying paper, Graduate School of Education,
Harvard University.

Stachaa, J.L. (1981) Instructional supervisionand teacher
development. The Australian Administrator (April,
1981),
1-4.
United Nations Education Science and Culture Organization(UNESCO) (1984) Diagnostic studies on e.ducational
management: Country studies, Sri Lanka. UNESCO
Regional
Office for Education in Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.
Utz, R.T. (1972) Principal leadership styles andeffectiveness asperceived by teachers. Paper presented at the annual
meetingof the American Educational Research Association,
April 1972
(ERIC ED 064240).
Venezky, R.L. & Winfield, L. (1979) Schools thatsucceeded beyond
expectations in teaching reading.
University of Delaware
Studies on Education, Technical Report No. 1.
NewarkDelaware: Department of Educational Studies, UniversityofDelaware, Aug. 9, 1979 (ERIC ED 17 484).
Wallen, E.L. (1968) The credibility gap in supervision.
Colorado
Educational Research 10: 113.
Weber, G. (1971) Inner city children can be taught
to read: Foursuccessful schools. Washington, D.C. Council for
Basic
Education.
Williams, L.B. & Hoy,
(1971) Principal-staff relations:
Situational mediator of effectiveness.
The Journal of
Educational Administration 9: 66-73.
Wolcott, H.F. (1973) The man in the principal's
office:ethnography. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston,
Inc.

An

World Bank (1986) Sri Lanka: Education and Training
Sector
Memorandum. Vol. 1 of 3.

Table1

Characteristics of "Effective" Schools.

BrooMover and Lcotne (197.'1

Edmonds" (181)

Phi Oelta Kappa (19802

Rutier and others (19791" improving schools acceot* Clarity that pupil acquisition
9 Successful schools are char.
* Outcomes were be.ter inand emonasi:e the imporof the basic school skills
acterized by clearly stated'schools where teachers ex­
tance o basic skills masterytakes precedence over all
curricular goals and objec.
pec;ed th- children toas prime goas and objecether school activities
lives. achieve well
tires
There is a climate of exoecta* The leaders' attitudes towarde Outcomes were better in" Stan of improving schools
lion in which no children are
urban education and expec
schools that provided pleas­
believe all students canpermitted to fall below mini.
tations for school or pro.
ant working conditions formaster :he basic skiils p..
mum but efficacious levels
gram success determine thethe pupils
jeicives and they believe theof achievement
impact of the leader on ex.
* Outcomes were better inprincipal shares this beliet* Administrative leadership is
ceotional schools
schools where immediate.
" Staff ci im.proving schools
strong and without it the dis* The behavior of the designat.
direc: praise and approval
expect :heir s:udents will Soparate elements of gooded school or program leader
were the prevalent meanson wth :heir cducation
schooling can be neither
is cruzial in determiningof classroom feedback" Staff of improving schools
brought together nor kept
school success
0 Oucomes were better in
do not make excuses: the"tog t'er* Successful urban schools Ireschools where teachers pre­% ssurne responsibiliry for- A means is present by whichquently employ technioues
sented themselves as posi­" aching basic skills and =re •pupil progress can be ireof individualized instruttion
tive role models demon­committed to do so
auently monitored* Struc-ured learning environ.
strating punctuality, con­
* Stan' of improving schools* There is an atmosphere thatments are paricui-riv suc.
cern for -he physical well­\spend more time on achie--,is orderly without being rig.
cessiul in urban classrooms
being of tht school
Ing basic skills objec:ives
id. quiet without being op* Reductions in adul.child rbuilding. conc.rn for the* Principals at improvingpressive. and generally con. tios are associated with posi.
emotional well-being of 'heschools -assetivto the instruional
tive school performance
lducive
pupils. and restraint in the
structional leaders and dbsbusiness at hand
* Successful schools are often
use of physical punishment
ciplinarians. and they assuoported with special projo Children's behavior was bet­
sume responsibilityfor theect funds from federal, state.
ter. in schools where teach­
evaluation of the achieveand local sources
ers were readily available toment of basic skills objec­
Successful urban schools are
be consulted by children
tives.characterized by high levels
about problems and where" Stan' at improvirng schoolsof parental contact with themany children consulted
acceot the concept of acschool and parental involve.
with teacherscountabilitv and are inment with school aciivit;!sOutcomes were better involved in ieveloping (or us* Successful schools frequent.
-schools where a hieh pro­ing) accountabiity modch
ly use staff development or
portion of children held
" Teachers at improving
inservice training programs
some kind of position of re­schools arc not very saisto realize their objectives
sponsibility in the school
fled or complacent abot
* The greater the specificity orsystemthe status quo
focus of the training pro.
* A school's armesphere is in­" There is more parent-initiatgram in terms of goals or
fluenced positively by theed contact and involve'rcnit
processes. the greater the
degree to which it functionsat improving schools (e-,.,nlikelihood of its successas a coherent whole, withthough the overall amount.9 Resource and facility maagreed ways of doing thingsof parent involvement isnipulations alone are insuffithat are consistent through­less)dent to affect school outout the school and that
- The compensatory eduocomes
have the general support oftion programs in impro'ng
all staff
schools de.-empha.si:e p­professional involvemer
and teacher involvement in
the selection of Compd-W

bound students

From:

D'Amico,Joseph,"Each

Effective School May Be One of a Kind,"December
1982, pp. 61-62

Educational Leadership,

[able 2

Sumnary of Effective School Characteristics
and Dimensions of Effective Principalship

Characteristics of Effective Schools

Dimensions of Principal Effectivenesso strong inscructzin'l leadershipo emphasis on goals and basic skills
masteryo strong instructional leadershipo development of consensus and commit­
ment to short and long term goals andto student mastery of basic skills
o establishment of high expectations forstudents and staffo monitoring of individual and collective
student progress and staff performanceo provision for staff development activitieso coordination of curriculum and instructiono high expectations for student
achievemento a system of monitoring student
progressc an active staff development program
o coherence and consistency of schoolfunctioningo a safe orderly learning environmento pleasant working conditionso shared decision-makingo facilitation of teacher work and of
constructive student behavioro creating and maintaining a positive
school climate
o commitment to collaborative and systematic
decision-making

Table3

Halpin's Leadership Quadrant

Initiating Structure (IS)High

C In this quadrant are foundthose
who emphasize initiating structureleaders
but
not consideration. The primaryconcernof this type leader is to accomplish
the task.

(2)

00
0

C +
In this quadrant are foundthose leaders
who emphasize both initiating
and consideration. This type structure
leader isperceived as being the mosteffective.

()

o1

M
-4

CW
$4

0
U

In this quadrant are foundthose leaders
who emphasize neither initiating
structure nor consideration. This
type
leader is percelved as being
the least
effective.

In this quadrant are foundthose leaders
who emphasize consideration
but not in­
tiating structure. The primaryconcernof this type leader is satisfying
humanrelationships.

IS
IS
C

C

+

Initiating Structure (IS)Low
SOURCE:

Morris, John E. and Roy M.
Bennett.. Leadership StyZesof Pri-ncipaZs and Supervisors:
An Application of the Grid
Technique. College Station,
Texas: College of Education,
Department of Educational Curriculum
and Instruction, Texas A &M University, 1979,
ERIC p. 10. (ED 187 016) Used
with permission.

Table•Blake and

uiglg

4

rlton's Managerial Crid

9
1, 9
This
lYpcleader emphasizes good human relationI

89, 9This type leader emph.-

sizes teamwork, coopera­

ships ond deemphasizes
7 -

tion,

the importance of getting

trust, and respect,and is perceived as thethe job done.

most effective.

6

,4

o.
0
.

5, 5

This type leader tries toUoW

maintain a balance of emphasis on task and people.

0U

This leader is best known­
an a compromiser.

This ty'pe

2

leader cmphl-

rhjrs typesizes nuiher ccicern

or.

people tior for acccmpti:h.ing tle task and is perceivedas the least cffective.

Low 0

'izes

Leader emlIh.:.­getting:h! .Jh­done and dccmpha-.sz:C;
the importance ofhuman relations.
­

9i

,
12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Concern for task
SOURCE:

Morris, John E. -nd Roy M. 11enhoLt..
Leadcr)zip StyZes of TPi-nch/jai and Suyl)viors:
An AppZicatio.n of the Gr-id
CoI legc SLat ion, Texas: CQ']leg," of Edtuction,
rec/izqe.
BepartmLnt of Educational Curric.lum anadl:;;tructlon, Texas A & H University, 1.979.
ERIC p. 10. (El) 187 0()
Used wiLh permi, inon.

Table5Distribution of the Principal's Time During

an "Average"

School Day

Activic. of Princioal
Prearranged meeting or
conference
Deliberate buc noc prearranged
encounter
Casual or chance encounter
Telephoning

Observed Dayco-Day
Range
(in
Percentages)

P e nr of Timein an "\verage" Day

13-35

26

Talking on incercom
Alone and sCationary (e.g., working
in his office)

24-29
10-28
7-10
.6-1.5.
13-24

Alone and enrouce (e.g., going coa meeCing, walking down the hall)

15

7-14

9

SOURCE:

Wolcoc,Harry F. The Man in the Principal's
Office:
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winscon,
Inc., 1973, p. 89.

25
15g

TOTAL

100

An Ethnography.

New York,

New

The Average Amount of Time Neu YorkPrincipals Actually Spend,
and Ideally Wouild Spend, Performing
Various Role Punctions

Role Area
Business and Budget Management

Percent of

9.1%

Curriculum and Program Development
Discipiinend Building Control

19.0

District-Wide Administrative Duties

5.1

Instructional SupervisionInteraction wth Community Croups
Noneaching Staff Supervision

L/ork Time

Actual

14.6

19.1
6.4
5.4

Professional Staff Recruiting & Training
Scheduling and Facilities
Management

6.6

Self-Improvement & Professional Activities

4.3

5.1

Negotiations.8
SOURCE:The Pubic.
School Principal:
An Overuiew.
Albany, New York:State of New York
Office of Education Performance
Review, December 1974, pp. 14-40.

Ideal
5.9%
21.1
8.1
3.0
26.3
7.3
3.9
6.5
4.4
6.2
. 4
.4

Table7

Ranking of job activitics
Rank orderof priority

SLES principals

by principals in

IA. B and C school principals

Sri Lanka
Grades 2 and 3 school principals

I

School administration

School plan preparation

2

School plan

Evaluating pupils ability

Preparing the time-tables

School administration

3

Pupil discipline

School administration

4

School time-tables

Teacher supervision

Curriculum management and development

5

Supervision of classes

Educational planningSupervising classrooms

6

Finance management

Guidance to parents

Pupils performance and remedial work

7

Organizing annual coml)ctition

Extra-curricular activities

Training office staff

Training staff

8

Interviewing parents

Evaluating office staff

Curriculum management and develop.

9Principals' meetings

Programme control of school plan

10

Staff meetings

Financial management

II

Discussions with MPs

Management and work of office staff

Interviewing parents

12

Procurement and additional supplies

Curriculum dcvelopmcnt

Guidance to office staff

13

Physical resources

SDS meetings

Physical resources

14

Report %,riting

Progress control of school planrxtra-curricular activities

Evaluation of performance

15

Attending official seminars

Rclations with public

Finance management

ment
Public relation

8
DIMENSIONS OF PRINCIPAL'S MANAGEMENT racle
ORIENTATION
Leadership
Dimension I:in

CurricularManagement

Excieonagemen
Dimension---Executive Management

Items:
Items.
I always see that I attend to thediversified needs of the pupils.
The
principals
should theencourage
teachers
to completesyllabus and assignments within
school hours or with often
homework to achieve set targets.
I organize programmes with thecooperation of the SDS to
inspire the parents to takegeneral interest in thechildren's academic activities.
take great and
pride
in organizing
exhibitions
programmesforstudents to learn more.
The principal functions withteachers as co-partners andmembers of a team on curriculum
development and allied

activities.scol
All school activities run
effectively as the principalaligns the skills of teacherswith the tasks assigned to them.

I schedule the work to be done
andachieve specific targets on
different programmes of the school.
It is my duty to keep the staff
students informed of the day to andissues, problems and development day
inthe school.
In monitoring the progress of thecurriculum, principals shouldempahsize on the deadlines to work
according to a schedule.
I personally
see that
representativesof student bodies
consult each otherbefore important
decisions of the schools aremet.
In preparing the school budget,
do not forget to allocate funds I
onpriorities made by teachersforeducational activities in theschool.
There is success in outcomes
if theplans are implemented andcontrolled on the available
database in the school.

raDle9Operational iztion and Ketsurementof V~jor Variables
Domain of variables
cturalvariables

cipal's personal
3cteristics

us of training
gementrole orientation

Name of VEriables
Type of school
Cluster status
Location of the scheo!
Age
GenderEduc3tion attainment
Distance from school
Service status
Service ranks
Length in service
Received training or notType of training received
Curriculum management
Executive function

2ipaJ's management,jiorsPerceivccd
curriculum managcment,
frequency of
exec utive function

Source of Variables (Instrument)
Principal Questionnaire

Principal Questionnaire

Principal Questionnaire
Manangement Orientation Scale
Management

Orientat-ion/PracticeScaleraole 9 continues

cipal's 2eadership styles

l outcome measures

Consideration ;nd initiating
structurc
Managcmcnt of day-to-day
operations:
Inclusion of staff members indecision making
Contribute towards teachers
professional development
Development of formal plan forschoolInvolvement in student welfare
activities
Active in curriculum
development
Principal's estimation ofschool's overall
effectivenessDiily attendancc
Discipline
Students liking of schoolStudents disliking of school
Principal's estimation of
student achievement
Estimation of student
achievement relative toresources
Quality of co-curricujr
activities

Quality of school-community
relations

Le:dcr Behavior. Descriptive
Questionnaire

Principal

QuestionnaireTable 10

MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION OF PRINCIPALS SAMPLED(WEIGHTED)CURRICULUMMANAGEMENTEXECUTIVE
FUNCTION

Mean Score
17.18
20.48

Table 11
SCHOOL OUTCOMES BY PRINCIPALTYPOLOGYSCHOOL OUTCOME:

Q055

Q056

Q057

Q058

S642

Q072A

2.94

2.59

2.54

2.3

2.96

2.82

3.52

2.82

2.54

2.77

2.74

2.47

2.82

2.5

2.31

2.38

2.54

3.05

2.72

2.22

2.5

2.68

Q072C

Q072D

STURP

TEARP

MATRP

64.01

29.55

0.18

0.16

0.098

81.45

11.67

0.12

0.09

0.01

84.84

13.8

0.23

0.15

0.16

76.2

19.01

0.24

1.95

0.15

TYPOLOGY
1
2
3
4

2.49

2.68

SCHOOL OUTCOMES-CONT.
SCHOOL OUTCOME:

Q072B

TYPOLOGY
1

7.46

2

5.36

3

10.21

4

4.94

----------------------055=Principalls estimation.05 6 =Principal's estimation of student achievement.
*057 =Principal's estimation of student achievement.
05 8 =Principals estimation of school's co-curricular activities.
of school's community service
orientation.
1=among the best
2=better than average
3=about average
4 =below
average
5=inferior
6 4 2=Principal's
estimation of school's overall
effectiveness.
1=very effective
2 =effective
4 =ineffective
3=average
5=veryineffective
07 2 A=Principals estimationof daily school attendance.
l=over 98%
2=90-97%
3=80-89%7
4=70-79%2
5=60-69%
0 B=Number of kids disciplined
6=below 60%
by2
principal
in a typical week.
07 C=Principal's estimation
07 2 D=Principalfs estimation of the percentage of kids who like sch i..
,of the percentage of kids
who dislj!, school.
TURP=Student conditions reforms
EARP=Teacher development actions (proportional)(proportional)
ATRP=Teaching materials (proportional)

Table 12
MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION BY TYPE
OF SCHOOLSTYPE OF SCHOOL:
MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION:CURRICULUMMANAGEMENTEXECUTIVE
FUNCTION

0

17.08

17.31

21.05

12.8

Table13

MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION BY PRINCIPAL'S SERVICE STATUSSERVICE STATUS:SLEASI

II

III

PRIN.IIIIII

CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT

0

16

15.88

17.62

17.32

16.58

EXECUTIVE FUNCTION

0

20

21.56

21.28

20.5

20.19

MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION:

Table14

MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION BY GENDER OF PRINCIPALSGENDER:

FEMALE

MALE

17.09

17.28

20.93

20.39

MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION:CURRICULUMMANAGEMENTEXECUTIVE
FUNCTION----------------------There are small but statistically significant differences
between male and female principals.

Table lb

MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION BY
SERVICE STATUSSERVICE STATUS:PERMANENTACTINGPERFORMING

17.11

17.28

17.04

20.18

20.11

20.11

MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION:CURRICULUMMANAGEMENTEXECUTIVE
FUNCTION

Table16

MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION BY LOCATION OF SCHOOLSLOCATION OF SCHOOL:

RURAL

SUBURBAN

URBAN

17.13

'17.14

17.42

20.46

20.19

21

MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION:CURRICULUMMANAGEMENTEXECUTIVE
FUNCTION

Difference in management orientation is only marginallysignificant.

lale 17

MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION BY CLUSTER STATUS
CLUSTER STATUS:

1

2

3

CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT

17.64

16.84

17.18

17.19

EXECUTIVE FUNCTION

20.87

20.47

20.73

19.86

4

5

MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION:---------------------- 1=Rural school not in a cluster

2=Urban school not in a cluster

3=Rural school in one of the original "classic' clusters
created before the 1984 reform
4=Urban school in one of the original "classic' clusters
5=Rural school in a modified cluster
6=Urban school in a modified cluster*Categories 4 & 6 were excluded from analyses due toinsufficientnumber of cases. There was one case in each category.

6

Table18

MEAN SCORE OF MANAGEMENT BEHAVIORS OF PRINCIPALS SAMPLED(WEIGHTED)MEAN SCORECURRICULUM MANAGEMENT

11.35

EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS

8.85

INITIATION STRUCTURE

40.14

CONSIDERATION

43.2

Tabie!9

PREDICTING SCHOOL OUTCOME WITH MANAGEMENTBEHAVIORSSCHOOL

Q055

Q056

Q057

Q058

S642

R

R

R

R

R

0.377

0.266

0.915

0.319

0.282

0.164

0.107

0.208

0.151

0.191

OUTCOMEMANAGEMENTBEHAVIORINITIATIONSTRUCTURECONSIDERATIONCURRICULUMMANAGEMENT&EXECUTIVE

FUNCTION---------------------All multiple regression coefficients are
significant, meaning that the
combination of initiation of structure
and consideration as well as the
combination of executive function andcurriculum management are goodpredictors for school outcomes.

Table 21

MANAGEMENT BEHAVIORS BY PRINCIPAL'S STATUSSERVICE STATUS:SLEASI

II

III

PRIN.IIIIII

CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT

13

15.83

9,9

10.62

13.26

13.5

EXECUTIVE FUNCTION

5

8.3

9.5

8.77

8.4

9.03

INITIATION STRUCTURE

5

47.73

42.97

39.63

42.34

38.09

47.86

46.71

40.38

43.08

42.6

MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOR:CONSIDERATION----------------------Since there was only one case in SLEASI category,it was excluded fromanalysis. All other differences were significant.

Table22

MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOR BY GENDER OF PRINCIPALSGENDER:

FEMALEMALE

CURRICULUMMANAGEMENT

12.41

11.22

EXECUTIVE
FUNCTION

9.23

8.66

INITIATIONSTRUCTURE

41.31

39.43

CONSIDERATION

42.8

42.98

MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOR:I'able23

GEMENT PRACTICE BY LOCATION OF SCHOOLLOCATION OF SCHOOL:

RURAL

SUBURBANURBANMANAGEMENT PRACTICE:CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT

12.29.

9

10.81

EXECUTIVE FUNCTION

8.43

9.67

8.85

INITIATION STRUCTURE

42.9

42.73

42.23

46.7

51.67

42.16

CONSIDERATION

Table 24

MANAGEMENT BEHAVIORS BY CLUSTER STATUS
CLUSTER STATUS:

1

2

3

11.87

9.99

11.5

11.62

EXECUTIVE FUNCTION

9.5

8.92

8.61

8.82

INITIATION STRUCTURE

39.57

40.7

40.54

40.87

CONSIDERATION

43.93

43.52

43.36

40.37

4

MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOR:CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT

lable 25

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PRINCIPAL'SPERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
AND MANAGEMENT PRACTISESDECISION
PLANNING
WELFAREINSTR.MNG.
CURRICULUMDECISION
PLANNING
WELFAREINSTR.MNG.
CURRICULUM

PRINCIPAL'S
STATUS
r
0.16
0.18
-0.06
-0.32
0.1

LENGTH OFSERVICE
r
-0.15
0.19
0.17
-0.22
0.07

SERVICESTATUS
r
0.48
0.3
-0.12
-0.43
0.03

QUALIFICATIONSMANAGEMENTAGE

TRAINING
r
0.35
0.1
-0.05
-0.41
-0.03

PROXIMITYOF HOMEDECISION
PLANNING
WELFAREINSTR.MNG.
CURRICULUM

r
0.23

-0.01
0.07
-0.08
-0.02

r

0.14
-0.45
-0.24
0.21
0.19

-0.25
-0.55
-0.13
0.21
-0.1

PROXIMITY OF
BIRTHPLACEGENDER

r
-0.32

r

0.06
-0.08
0.12
-0.11

r=Spearman's Rank Correlation
Coefficient

0.27
0.33
0.25
-0.02
0.12

Table 26

SCHOOL OUTPUTS AND MANAGEMENT
PRACTISES

0055

0056

r

0057

r

0058

r

A

DECISION
PLANNING
WELFAREINSTR.MNG.
CURRICULUM

0.41
-0.41
-0.38
-0.29
-0.08

0.46
0.15
-0.05
0.01
0.08

DECISION
PLANNING
WELFAREINSTR.MNG.
CURRICULUM

Q072B
r
0.83
-0.83
-0.77
0.03
0.67.

S642
r
0.37
-0.19
-0.19
-0.16
0.11

0.32
0.04
-0.4
-0.03
0.19

0.85
-0.81
-0.78
-0.01
0.69

0072A
r

0.52
-0.92
-0.86
0.43
0.43

r=Spearman's kw'' Correlation
Coefficient
0 0 5 5 =Principalls estimatl..
%f student achievement relativetonational
competition
Q056=Principal's estimationof student-..
nt relative toresources
7
Q05 =Principal's. estimation
Q05 8 =Principal's estimation of school's cocurricular activities.
of school community relations
inrelationtootherQ0 7 2 a=Principal's appraisal schools in the nationof daily attendanceQ0 7 2b=Number of students disciplined
by principal in a typical week
S 6 42 =Principal's estimationof school's overall effectivenessTable 27

INNOVATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PRACTISESSTUDENT
CONDITION!
r
-0.17
0.29
0.09

0.25
-0.27

DECISION
PLANNING
WELFAREINSTR.MNG.
CURRICULUMTEACHERDEVELOPMENT
r
-0.18
0.28
0.07

0.27
-0.29

STUDENT

COCURRICULAR.

GUIDANCE
r
-0.27
0.29
0.17.
'0.02
-0.26

IMPROVEMENTS
r
-0.14
0.12
0.05
0.24
-.
0.04

r=Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient

TEACHING
MATERIALS
r
-0.42
0.29
0.08

0.11
-0.32

SCHOOL COMMUNITY
RELATIONS
r
-0.18
0.29
0.21
0.16
-0.11

Table 28

Relationship between Management Practiceand Innovati6n Implemented

NUMBER OF 8
POSSIBLEINNOVATIONS
'0
1
2
3
4
6
7
8

AREAS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTISE:
INSTRUCTIONALMANAGEMENT
3.2
3.5
3.1
3.9
3.1
2.9
3.8
3.4

PLANNING

STUDENTWELFARE

2.5
2.2
1.9
3
3
3
3
2.9

3.1
3.5
3.8

MEAN SCORES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTISE"
VARIABLES ARE REPORTEDINSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 4=HIGH
1=LOW
PLANNING 4=HIGH 1=LOW,.
STUDENT WELFARE 6=HIGH l=LOW

4
3.9
4
4.8
3.9

Table29

Relatioiship between Mnagement Practiceand Innovations to Improve Teaching Materials

AREAS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTISE:
NUMBER OF I14ROVATIONSTO IMPROVE TEACH7NG
MATERIALS
PLANNING

S±T;7:ENT
WELe ARE
3

INSTRUCTIONALMANAGEMENT
3.1

DECISION
MAKING
2.8

0

2.4

1

2.7

3.9

2

3.3

3

4

2.7

3.3

3

MEAN SCORES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTISE VARIABLES AREREPORTEDPLANNING HIGH=4 1=LOW
WELFARE 6=HIGH 1=LOW
INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 4=HIGH 1=LOW
SHARED DECISION MAKING 4=HIGH 1=LOW

Table 30

Relationship between Location

and Cluster Status
and Managemnt Practice

SCHOOL LOCATION

1
2
3
5

DECISIo
MAKING

2.8
3
2.9
3

PLAN

INSTRCMANAGEMENT

2.3
2.5
2.5
2..8

3
3.2
3.2
3.6

WELFAR2
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.2

MEAN SCORES OF MANAGEMENT
PRACTISE VARIABLES
ARE REPORTEDSHARED DECISION MAKING
4=HIGH 1=LOW
PLANNING 4=HIGH 1=LOW
INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT
4=HIGH 1=LOW
STUDENT WELFARE 4=HIGH
1=LOW

SCHOOL LOCATION
1=RURAL SCHOOL NOT
IN A .CLUSTER
2=URBAN SCHOOL NOTIN
A CLUSTER
3=RURAL SCHOOL INONE OF THE ORIGINAL'CLASSIC' CLUSTERSCREATED BEFORE THE
1984
REFORMS
5=RURAL SCHOOL IN
A MODIFIED CLUSTER

Cni&

Table31

Relationship between Prihcipal's Birthplaceand Mahagement Practice

PROXIMITY OF
BIRTHPLACEVERY CLOSE

W/IN DISTRICTOUTSIDE DIST.
VERY FAR

AREAS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTISE:DECISION
MAKING
2.7

PLANNING
2.3

INSTRUCTIONALMANAGEMENT
3.2

2.8

2.6

2.8
2.8

3.3

2.3
2.4

3.1
3.1

MEAN SCORES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTISE
VARIABLES ARE REPORTEDSHARED DECISION MAKING 4=HIGH 1=LOW
PLANNING 4=HIGH 1=LOW
INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 4=HIGH
1=LOW

Table 32

Proximity of Prinipal's
Residenceand Management Practice

DISTANCE OF
HOME FROM SCHOOL
0-3KM.
4-8KM.

>8KM.

AREAS OF MANAGEMENT
PRACTISE:
DECISION
PLANNING
MAKING
2.8
2.8

2.7

INSTRUCTIONALMANAGEMENT

2.6
2.5

2.3
MEAN SCORES OF MANAGEMENT
PRACTISE VARIABLES
ARE REPORTEDSHARED DECISION MAKING
4=HIGH 1=LOW
PLANNING 4=HIGH 1=LOW
INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT
4=HIGH I=LOw

3.3
3.3

3.1

Table33

Management Practiceand Gender of the Principal

AREAS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTISE:DECISION

PLANNING

MAKINGSTUDENTCURRICU

WELFAREFEMALE

2.8

2.7

2.4

3.8

MALE

2.8

3

2.4

4.2

MEAN SCORES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTISE VARIABLES ARE REPORTEDSHARED DECISION MAKING 4=HIGH 1=LOW
PLANNING 4=HIGH 1=LOW
STUDENT WELFARE 4=HIGH 1=LOW
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 7=HIGH I=LOW(

Table34

Management Practice andPrincipal's Status

AREAS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTISE:
PRINCIPAL'S
STATUSPLANNING

PERM.
ACTINGPERFORMING

2.5
2.4
2.4

STUDENTWELFARECURRICULUM

3.1
3.1
3

4.2
4.4
4.3

MEAN SCORES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTISE
VARIABLES ARE REPORTEDPLANNING 4=HIGH 1=LOW

STUDENT WELFARE 6=HIGH 1=LOW
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 7=HIGH 1=LOW

Table35

Principal's Educational Attainment
and Management Practices

PRINCIPALS QUALIFICATIONS
Ph.D
B.E.D., B.A.
GCE, A.L.
GCE, O.L.

AREAS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTISE:DECISION
PLANNING
MAKING
2.1
2.8
3
2.9

1.7
2.3
2.9
2.5

MEAN SCORES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTISE VARIABLES
ARE REPORTEDSHARED DECISION MAKING 4=HIGH 1=LOW
PLANNING 4=HIGH 1=LOW
INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 4=HIGH 1=LOW

INSTRUCTION
MANACEMENT
2.4
3.3
3.2
3

Table36

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY TYPES OF TRAINING
STAFF COLLEGE/MAHARAGAMA

Frequency Percentage
24
25.26

STAFF COLLEGE/rALUTARA

12

12.63.

LOCAL TRAINING

44

46.32

FOREIGN TRAINING

1

1.05

Table37

MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOR BY TYPES OFTRAINING
MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOR:INITIATIONSTRUCTURE
TYPE OF TRAINING:
STAFF COLLEGE/MAHARAGAMA
STAFF COLLEGE/KALUTARADISTRICT MANAGEMENT CENTERLOCAL TRAININGFOREIGN TRAINING

35.74
37.59
40.65
39.78
42.75

CONSIDERATIONCURRICULUMMANAGEMENT

43.54

11.47

8.02

43.66

9.7

9.73

42.32

11.35

8.67

41.93

9.52

7.72

42.2

13

14

EXECUTIVE
FUNCTION

Types of training make difference
in all categories of management
foreign training seems to be superior
behaviors. The one case ofin all categories; however, since
this was only one case,it was excluded from analysis
were statistically signific nt.

Table 38
EFFECTS OF TRAINING ON MANAGEMENT ORIENTATIONCURRICULUM MANAGEMENT-0.028EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS

0.551---------------------Results obtained from linear regression indicate thattraining has low positive effect on curriculum management
while has negative effect on executive function.

/

Table 39
MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION BY TYPES OF TRAININGMANAGEMENT ORIENTATION:CURRICULUMMANAGEMENTEXECUTIVE
FUNCTION

STAFF COLLEGE/MAHARAGAMA

16.89

21.33

STAFF COLLEGE/KALUTARA

16.94.

20.13

DISTRICT MANAGEMENT CENTER

17.31

21.06

LOCAL TRAINING

17.32

19.94

18

18

TYPE OF TRAINING:FOREIGN TRAINING

"rable 40
EFFECTS OF TRAINING ON MANAGEMENT BEHAVIORR
CURRICULUMMANAGEMENT

0.039

EXECUTIVE
FUNCTION

0.142

INITIATIONSTRUCTURE

0.084

CONSIDERATION

0.069----------------------R is linear regression coefficient.
Rs are statistically significant.

AllTable41

Effects of Training on Management Practice

AREAS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTISE:DECISION
MAKINGTRAINING
NO TRAINING

2.9
2.6

PLANNING

INSTRUCTIONALMANAGEMENT

3.4
2.4

MEAN SCORES OF MANAGEMENT PRACTISE VARIABLES ARE REPORTEDSHARED DECISION MAKING 4=HIGH 1=LOW
PLANNING 4=HIGH 1=LOW
INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 4=HIGH 1=LOW

3.2
3

Table42

EFFECTS OF TRAINING ON PRINCIPAL'S' DAILY OPERATIONSr

PC7-0.345

DC4

-0.03

WF6

-0.042

PL4

0.027

IM4

0.067

--------------------r = Spearman's rank correlation coefficient.
PC7=Curricular development
DC4=Shared decision making
WF6=Student welfare actions
PL4=Planning
IM4=Instructional management

Figure 1
Major Concepts of Management
Study
Principal' s Perceptionof Administrative

RelatonsTrainingaof

District Level
Organization

1. Cluster or no
2. Other reforms

IX

Principal's Perception

1. 1A to 3f
2. Size
C-eography andCultural Settingio

1. Frequency of Contacts
2. Supportive of Initiativeof Obstacles to Change
School TypeiI .

Managemnent

Orientation

I At o 3

Resources Available to School
1. Affluence of ComTmunity
2. Interest
3. Cultural Amenities
4. Quality of Students

Management

SchoolPracticeA

Efficiency
L

Personal
Characteristicsof Principal

I Ef f ect i ven ec

Percentage
Frequency

100
90
80
70
60
50

30

46
46
41
31
36

20

26

40

10
0

M6M6

5.00
55.OO

LBDQ

Frequency Distribution of
Initiating Structure
Scale of Principals Sampled
Figure2Percentage-100

Frequency'

90
80
70
60
50.5
40

37

30
20

25

10

17
13
5

0
12.80
LBDQ
Frequency Distributionof Consideration
Scale of Principals
SampledFigure3

59.00

Value
4.4

4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6

3.4
3.2
3.0

208

0.

10

20

3,0

Freq.
40.

50

60

70

Frequency Distribution of CurricularManagement
Dimension of Management
Orientation

Figure

4

24

23
22

21
20
19
18
17
o16

15
14
13
12
11
10

9
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Frequency
Frequency

Distribution of Executive
Function of Management Orientation

Ff.
g ure070

V %- I U t::

4.6
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6

2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4

1.2
Freq.
10

20

30

40

Frequency

Distribution of Perceived
Practice of CurricularManagement

Figure6Dimensior

18
17
16
14
13
12
>

~11

.10

9
8

7
6
5
0

10

20

34

Frequency
Frequency Distributionof Perceived

Practiceof Executive Function

Figure7

Group ID
1

HHhigh on curriculum management
high on execvtive function

2

HL

3

LH

high on curriculum management
low on executive function
low on curriculum management
high on executive 'function

4

\ CM
EF\

LL

H
!F

H ,

1

I
--

L

--

--

low on curriculum management
low on executive function

L:---------------

2

Figure8

Value
4
3

2

Freq.
0

10

20

30

40

50

Frequency

Distrib. ofPrincipals

Classified

in Different

Management

Orientation

Types

2

0

20

40

Frequency

60

Distrib.

Who Have Received
Values:l=With training

2=No training

Figure1080of100 Freq.

Principals

TraininaValue

4.1

3.1

2.1
1.2
1.1

Freq.
0

10

20

30

40

Frequency

50

Distrib. of Principals'
Participation in Different Typesof

Training

Values:1.l=Staff College/Maharagama
1.2=Staff College/Kalutara
2 .1=District
Management Center
3.1=Local training
4.1=Foreign training

Figure

Ii

00
-

o-

0)o

0

D

0

C4

U-.

Li.

oX
4-CL

0
LnC4000LU

0O

EFFECTS OF TRAINING ON

MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION AND PRACTICE BY
LOCATION AND TYPE OF SCHOOLLOCATION
TYPE

1

2

3

4

ORIENTATION:CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT

-0.24

-0.08

EXECUTIVE FUNCTION

-0.24

1

2

3

4

-0.44

0.56

0.39

-0.28

-0.4

0.7

-0.66

-0.17

0.19

0.38

0.7

-0.139

-0.43

0.039

-0.18

-0.73

-0.039

-0.59

0.46

0.32

0.18

0.393

-0.24

-0.15

0.107

0.7

0.66

2

3

4

PRACTICE:CURRICULUM MANAGEMENTEXECUTIVE FUNCTION
INITIATION STRUCTURE
CONSIDERATIONEFFECTS OF TRAINING-CONT.
LOCATION
TYPE

1

ORIENTATION:CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT--------------------------------------------0.58

0.5

-0.9

EXECUTIVE FUNCTION

-0.49

-0.5

-0.23

PRACTICE:CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT-0.656

1

-0.45

0

-0.87

0.89

0.24

-0.87

0

0.158

-0.87

-0.44

EXECUTIVE FUNCTION
INITIATIONSTRUCTURECONSIDERATION-------------------

Since training was inversely coded; ie,
1=with training and 2=no training, a negative
correlation indicates a positive effect,
while a positive result indicates a negative
PFect.