Implementation of shared governance for instructional improvement: principals’ perspectives
Abstract
Describes the practices, thoughts, and feelings of shared‐governance principals as they confront the challenges of school restructuring. The focus is on the principals’ perspective on shared governance and democratic schooling; the challenges of becoming involved in collaborative decision making with teachers, parents, and students; and the principals’ own professional growth as they strove to become “one among equals” with their colleagues. The data discussed here were drawn from a qualitative study of principals in nine schools affiliated with Glickman’s League of Professional Schools in Georgia. A protocol of open‐ended interview questions designed by the researchers, according to general guidelines for grounded theory inquiry, provided principals with the opportunity to identify and describe in detail their perspective on shared governance leadership in schools. Inductive analysis of the data generated a description of the implementation of shared governance that includes five salient themes: meanings, becoming involved, letting go of power, supportive processes, and supportive structures. Discusses findings in terms of the relevant empirical and theoretical literature.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Principals play a key role in supporting professional growth among teachers by serving as instructional leaders who provide targeted feedback and facilitate opportunities for teachers to reflect on their practice.
“Principals play a key role in supporting professional growth among teachers by serving as instructional leaders who provide targeted feedback and facilitate opportunities for teachers to reflect on their practice (Blase & Blase, 1999; May & Supovitz, 2011; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003).”
From Can Professional Environments in Schools Promote Teacher Development? Explaining Heterogeneity in Returns to Teaching Experience (2014) · cites this paper as Blase & Blase, 1999
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2014) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/0162373713519496 · Cited by 433 · see citing works
Variabilities and Dualities in Distributed Leadership: Findings from a Systematic Literature Review
Woods, P. A., Bennett, N., Harvey, J. A., & Wise, C. (2004) · Educational Management Administration & Leadership · doi:10.1177/1741143204046497 · Cited by 307 · see citing works
- Authors
- Blase, J., & Blase, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Georgia (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Educational Administration
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 1999-12-01
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 476-500
- ISSN
- 0957-8234 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2019285345
- Cited by
- 100
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 10.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Educational Administration (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Leadership and Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › School Leadership and Teacher Performance
- Keywords
- shared governance, school principals, teaching improvement, school restructuring, democratic education, collaborative decision-making, school leadership, teacher participation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review