Toward a Three-Level Analysis of Policy Influences on School Leadership

• In Event: Reshaping Educational Practice for Improvement: How Schools Mediate and Enact Government Reforms

Abstract

Purpose
In addition to mediating the macro level (structural) insights into the merged political interests of particular movements such as NCLB (Apple, 2004), today’s leaders must navigate indirect policy influences from meso (regional) levels (e.g. competition among neighboring schools) and local policy expectations. This paper draws on empirical findings and the literature to examine relationships among school leadership actions and various policy influences.

Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework draws on literature from leadership and policy. Leithwood and Riehl’s (2005) meta-analysis identifies leadership practices that are necessary for success in any context: 1) setting directions; 2) developing people; 3) redesigning the organization; and 4) managing the instructional program. Additionally, in analyzing the principal’s use of macro-, meso- and micro policy influences, we draw on Ball and Bowe’s (1992) macro-micro dialectic of policy implementation and Marginson and Rhoades’ (2002) meso-perspective on regional policy influences on schools.

We suggest that, in addition to micro (local) and macro (structural) forces, a policy may be better understood by adding an examination of meso-perspectives. Meso-influences include regional organizations that influence schools. The pressures that these meso-level perspectives exert may be as tangible and politically influential as local/micro-driven or policy/macro-driven influences upon school leaders.

Methods: Selection, Data Sources, and Data Analysis
This paper uses findings from one illustrative case study conducted as part of the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP). Cases were selected based on documented evidence of student achievement that exceeded expectations on standardized tests and other indicators of school success. An additional criterion was added—the school principal was conscious of the use of policies and varying policy influences on school practice.

Interviews were conducted with the superintendent, principal, 20% of the teachers and support staff, and focus groups of parents and students, using common semi-structured interview protocols derived from leadership literature, including Leithwood and Riehl (2005) and Ball and Bowe (1992). Data analysis examined leadership practices as identified by Leithwood and Riehl (2005) as well as a three-tiered analysis of policy implementation (macro-meso-, and micro).

Results / Conclusions / Significance
Many scholars (e.g. Apple, 2004) consider how a reform policy “works” in terms of structural pressures on schools / leaders. Findings indicated that the principal and other participants used policies to leverage interest in adding advanced placement courses at the local level while state accountability mandates exerted power over other school practices. Findings also indicated that national pressures were accentuated by regional pressures to maintain high academic performance / ranking. These refracted policy pressures influenced the principal’s practices to promote college over local career and cultural assimilation over cultural identity. It was clear that the participants incorporated all three levels of accountability influences—direct and indirect influences that created both pressure and power for participants in their work.

In conclusion, we suggest the importance of a three-level analysis in considering policy influences on school leaders’ practices. Such a three-level policy analysis contributes a new analytical tool to the fields of leadership and policy.

Authors

• Jeffrey V. Bennett, The University of Arizona

• Jill P. Koyama, The University of Arizona

• Rose M. Ylimaki, The University of Arizona