Pacific Resources for Education and Learning 900 Fort Street Mall Suite 1300 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone:

e: (808) 441-1300 Fax: (808) 441-1385 Email: askprel@prel.org Website: www.prel.org Principals as Curriculum Leaders: New Perspectives for the 21st Century Stacey Marlow and Norman Minehira Monograph Product # MO9602

Preface The information age is upon us, making it more important than ever for principals to have a strong understanding of curriculum to help them effectively lead schools. This monograph provides an overview of key curriculum issues and processes of which principals must be aware. It discusses fundamental perspectives of curriculum content, as well as management and implementation of curriculum change. It also suggests ways in which principals may assume leadership in helping overcome factors that may inhibit successful curriculum implementation. Introduction In the past decade, public educatorsboth teachers and administratorshave faced considerable pressure from parents, the private sector, and politicians to be accountable for the bottom line. The bottom line is student learning, and now more than ever, educators are expected to create schools in which all children achieve excellent outcomes in the face of shrinking budgets, dwindling resources, and rapid social change. School principals must possess a wide array of competencies in order to lead schools effectively toward the accomplishment of educational goals. Erlandson and Witters-Churchill (1990, p. 123), drawing upon a large body of research in educational administration, suggest that the successful principal of the 1990s must: 1. Understand and implement educational program/curriculum development. 2. Understand the dynamics of the classroom and identify and apply effective instructional strategies. 3. Run a business efficiently and effectively. 4. Coordinate the hiring, retention, promotion, and dismissal of a large number of professional personnel. 5. Master and coordinate the auxiliary services that support instruction.

6. Establish productive relationships with parents and community. 7. Implement a program for social and emotional development of students that goes beyond academics. 8. Understand and effectively work within the legal framework provided by legislative mandate, bureaucratic regulation, and judicial decree. Erlandson and Witters-Churchill also suggest that dual focus on the principalship and school improvement in the last quarter of the 20th century has intensified the need for principals to excel at competencies related to curriculum and instruction. The implications of this intensified need are that principals:

Must understand the various aspects of curriculum development and implementation. Must be informed of current trends in instruction. Must understand the relationship between curriculum and assessment. Must know how to provide appropriate staff development to support teachers in implementing curriculum and instruction change. Must be able to provide adequate resources to teachers for curriculum implementation. Must be able to communicate effectively with parents so the schools curricular and instructional programs are relevant, understood and supported by the community. Must be able to incorporate all of these activities and understandings in a coherent plan that ultimately leads to improved student learning.

The many curricular and instructional responsibilities facing principals may be easily stated, but they are not easily accomplished. Murphy (1990), drawing on a comprehensive body of research on instructional leadership, found that while most principals believe they should spend more time attending to the technical core of the school (curriculum and instruction), they spent the majority of their time attending to other issues related to operations, management, and public relations. Furthermore, Murphy suggests that part of the reason principals have not been able to act effectively as curricular and instructional leaders is because of teachers perceptions of their role in this capacity. A substantial body of research indicates that teachers do not view instructional leadership as the primary responsibility of principals, do not see much evidence of instructional leadership on the part of principals, and are reluctant to accept principals as instructional leaders (Murphy, 1990, p. 164). This means that, in addition to possessing expert knowledge of the foundations of curriculum and instruction, principals must also be able to work with teachers to develop a common understanding of what it means to be an instructional leader. Principals in Hawaii and the Pacific region, because of the current fiscal climate, face numerous

obstacles daily that can make it difficult for them to concentrate time in instructional leadership. Regardless it is necessaryperhaps now more than everfor principals to provide excellent leadership in curriculum innovation and implementation. The purpose of this monograph is to provide an overview of the curricular issues facing elementary, middle school, and secondary principals in the 21st century, and to outline ways in which principals in Hawaii and the Pacific can lead their schools in successful curriculum development and implementation. Curriculum Leadership: What Does it Mean to Teachers and Administrators? The terms curriculum and leadership are so broad and encompassing that their meanings are inevitably subject to a wide variety of interpretations among educators. As shown in Figure 1, teachers primary responsibilities are their students and the subject(s) they teach. Therefore, teachers tend to entertain a more micro perspective of curriculum, seeing it in terms of their student learning in the classroom.

Figure 1 the Curriculum Focus of the Classroom Teacher Principals, on the other hand, have the responsibility for coordinating the entire schools activities and dealing with a more vocal external public and must assume a more macro perspective. They tend to view curriculum not only as a collection of subjects, but as the entire set of experiences the students have in school. As shown in Figure 2, principals must have an understanding of not only what is occurring in individual classrooms, but the relationship between teachers, students, and content throughout the school. Principals who work at developing an understanding of these often complex relationships are better able to function

effectively as curriculum leaders. Figure 2 The Curriculum Focus of the Principal

Teachers and principals ideas about leadership parallel their ideas about curriculum, again, mainly because of different experiential bases. While most principals have been teachers, most teachers have never been principals, so there is often a lack of shared understanding of the nature of the work in administration. This lack of shared background can sometimes create an oppositional stance, with teachers observing that principals have forgotten what its like to be in the classroom and principals saying that teachers dont understand what is required of administrators who have to consider the needs of everyonestudents, teachers, parents, and classified staffin the school community. This difference in perspectives establishes a paradox for principals as curricular leaders: it creates a communication gap that makes their task more complex and difficult, while at the same time making it more important than ever that they, with their breadth and depth of experience, take the

initiative to bridge those communication gaps. Principals must bring teachers together to develop a curriculum that meets the states requirements, fits the school community, and supports the schools vision and its mission. What Principals Should Know about Curriculum Content and Process Curriculum experts generally identify five concepts of curriculum that are present within most schools. These concepts are: 1. The Official curriculum, which is documented. 2. The Operational curriculum, which is implemented in classrooms. 3. The Hidden curriculum, which includes the unwritten norms and expectations of the school, both social and academic. 4. The Null curriculum, which consists of subjects that are consciously omitted from the schools Official and/or Operational curriculum. 5. The Co-curriculum, which includes all of the experiences engaged in by students and teachers, before, during, and after the regular school day. The principal can play an important role in the development and interpretation of all these curricular areas. While it is important that principals have a basic knowledge of curriculum and learning theory, it is even more important that they have a clear understanding of the school culture and are able to establish strong working relationships with teachers. Schools that stand out as strong learning communities have clear goals and expectations of students stated in their official curriculum. Teachers understand these goals and expectations and implement them in the operational curriculum. Finally, the hidden, null, and co-curricula all function to support, not undermine, the official and operational curricula. Principals are a little bit like orchestra conductors as they coordinate curriculum in their schools. They must know the scorethe official curriculumas well as the teachers (the musicians). In addition, they must know how the pieces of music for each instrumentgrade levels, subject areas blend and complement one another to create the overall effect of the symphony. Finally, although the musicians are professionals with expert knowledge of their instruments and music, the conductor helps them interpret and refine their performances, as does a principal in supporting teachers professional development in curriculum and teaching. Principals and the Official Curriculum In effective schools where there is a strong emphasis on learning and positive student outcomes, principals play an important role. They establish routines to work with teachers to examine the curriculum at every grade level and in every content area to determine areas of strength, and areas which need improvement. These are schools with clearly identifiable theoretical perspectives on

teaching and learning, and where the choice of materials and teaching methods, and student learning experiences support these perspectives. Posner (1995) identifies five theoretical perspectives of curriculum: 1. Traditional, which focuses on the most important aspects of cultural heritage that should be preserved. 2. Experiential, which concentrates on experiences that will lead to the healthy growth of an individual. 3. Structure of the disciplines, which examines the structure of the disciplines of knowledge as it is understood and used in the real world. 4. Behavioral, which seeks to determine what learners should be able to do at the completion of the curriculum. 5. Cognitive, which explores how people can learn to make sense of the world and to think more productively and creatively. Few, if any, modern public school curricula focus exclusively in any one of these perspectives. Most combine several of them, based on the schools mission and vision, the community expectations, and the grade level and subject area of the students. Problems may arise, however, if there is a conflict between perspectives among teachers, or if the instructional materials do not support the perspective. For example, whole language programs for developing literacy in elementary school reflect the experiential and cognitive perspectives. Basal reading programs, on the other hand, are grounded in the traditional and behavioral perspectives. Therefore, in schools where whole language is specified as the official curriculum, yet where basal readers dominate classroom instruction, there is a conflict in perspectives that may blur the focus of instruction and impede optimal student learning. Another example of potential conflict is the match between instruction and assessment. If the school adopts an experiential and cognitive curriculum, assessment should fit the curriculum and also be experiential and cognitive. However, many current assessment practices are heavily behavioral, focusing more on students attainment of learning objectives than on their ability to perform new tasks or changes in their thinking and understanding. Principals need to be aware of the various theoretical perspectives of curriculum so that, in helping develop the schools mission and vision and subsequent official curriculum, there are not inconsistencies among programs, practices, and materials. They also need to assume leadership in helping teachers understand the relationship between instruction and assessment so that evaluation reflects what is actually being taught to students. Finally, principals need to make sure that curriculum development is a process, not an event. The schools official curriculum should be closely linked to the School Improvement Plan and reviewed and revised on a regular and ongoing basis to permit modification as necessary for improvement.

Principals and the Operational Curriculum To be effective curricular leaders at the operational level, principals must work closely with teachers. These principals are highly visible at the school. They walk the campus and talk to students, visit classrooms, and meet with teachers frequently. They also have an open-door policy and regular feedback from parents, teachers, students, and other community members about happenings in the school. It might be said that the curriculum of a school is made or broken at the operational level because it is at this level where what is supposed to be taught (the official curriculum) comes together with what is actually taught in classrooms. If the two work compatibly and the teachers are actually implementing the official curriculum, the school is likely to demonstrate positive student outcomes. If gaps appear between the official and operational curricula, however, it can signal problems in the school that might translate into diminished student performance. Discrepancies between the official and operational curricula might occur for many reasons. Teachers may disagree with proposed changes in the official curriculum and ignore them; there may not be sufficient space or materials for teachers to teach them appropriately; teachers may not have a clear understanding of how to implement a new change such as heterogeneous grouping, or teachers may be teaching outside of their certification area and not have the confidence and/or expert knowledge to teach most effectively. The principal can and must provide support to teachers at the operational level; that is, at the level where instruction actually occurs. This is especially important in the case of curriculum change or innovation. Often, when the curriculum is changing, teachers may be skeptical or even uncomfortable with the change for a variety of reasons. They may be opposed to it philosophically; they may feel that things are working well enough as they are and if it isnt broken, why fix it?; they may fear that the time and resources needed to implement the change will not be available, or they do not have a clear enough understanding of the new program to implement it fully. In these instances, principals must provide strong support and leadership to make sure teachers not only understand the change, but are comfortable with it and, therefore, able to accept its implementation. This process takes time and perseverance on the part of teachers and administrators. Studies of teachers implementation of curriculum at the elementary and secondary levels suggest there are four stages involved in the change process. Each stage in the process is critical if the innovation is to occur successfully; failure at any one of the first three stages can prevent full implementation. The stages, and their characteristics, and the areas for focus by the principal are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Stages of Curriculum Change

Stages and Characteristics Stage 1 Beginning Awareness: Teachers are made aware of the curriculum change or innovation through education and staff development activities.

Focus of the Principal

Commitment of time and money for staff development Current level preparation of teachers Teachersperceptions about gains and losses associated with change Provide ample staff development Provide ongoing support for teachers Provide opportunities for teachers to practice the change in a low-risk setting Encourage collaboration among teachers Include parents in change process Increased number of teachers changing practice The level of collaboration among staff Teachers are beginning to suggest modifications for the curriculum Change is being integrated across grade levels and/or subject areas Teachers begin to evaluate

Stage 2 Rise in Comfort Level: As teachers participate in staff development activities, they begin to collaborate with other teachers and feel more comfortable with the technical and pedagogical aspects of the change.

Stage 3 Spread of Acceptance: As teachers collaborate and feel comfortable with the curriculum, more teachers begin to change their practice , forming a critical mass.

Stage 4 Full Implementation of Curriculum: The curriculum change is fully accepted and becomes institutionalized in the organization.

It becomes integrated with other curricular areas and is modified as it is evaluated.

the impact of the change

Evaluation procedures become more standard Evaluation modifies implementation

At the beginning awareness level, it is important that administrators provide time for teachers not only to become aware of the curricular innovation, but to understand it so as to become comfortable using it. Joyce and Showers (1982) suggest that 30-45 hours of in-service and educational preparation time are necessary at the beginning awareness level to allow teachers to become comfortable implementing the change. The researchers compare teaching to athletics, where the application of a new skill upsets the delicate balance of complex factors that contribute to a smooth performance. Because a new behavior feels uncomfortable the first few times it is triedeven when it represents a better technique or practicepeople have a tendency to revert to their former way of doing things. Joyce and Showers (1982) found that in effective schools there is a coaching environment where teachers work as one anothers coaches in implementing change. In this way, they have a real reason to work collaboratively. And, because all teachers are learners as well as coaches, they are freer to take the necessary trial and error kinds of risks that can lead to improved practice. As more teachers work together in implementing the change, there is a rise in comfort level and spread of acceptance. Once these stages have occurred, the new curriculum reaches the point of full implementation. The principal plays a key role by leading and supporting teachers through these stages. If the stages are rushed or skipped, teachers will resist implementing the new curriculum and revert to their former practices. If, on the other hand, too much time is spent on any stage and teachers do not see the progression from one stage to the next, the initiative may lose momentum and fail. Teachers must see that the principal values their working collaboratively in a coaching environment to improve practice. They cannot merely be assigned a coaching partner with the expectation that any meaningful interaction will occur. The principal must see to it that they are also given the time and opportunity to plan and practice together, as well as to observe one another and engage in reflective feedback. Otherwise, teachers are likely to perceive the coaching experience as an exercise in contrived collegiality in which they are told to work together by the principal, but are given no institutional support so that their collaboration occurs sporadically on a superficial level that is not likely to lead to change (Hargreaves & Dawe, 1989). Principals Helping Overcome Limits to Curriculum Implementation

Principals, as curricular leaders, must provide direction and support to teachers. They must provide direction in helping teachers identify, select, and develop programs and materials that meet student needs within the context of the schools vision and mission. Principals also need to ensure that teachers have the time, resources, and professional development opportunities to implement curricular programs. Perhaps the most important role the principal plays in curriculum leadership is facilitating teachers in its implementation, because even the best official curriculum is worthless unless it can be successfully put into operation by the teachers. Posner (1995) identified seven areas, called frame factors that can affect curriculum implementation. These factors are typically thought of as inhibitors to implementation; however, principals with strong curricular leadership are able to minimize the negative impact of frame factors, often even turning them into assets. The frame factors are listed in Table 2. Table 2 Frame Factors Affecting Curriculum Implementation Temporal Physical Political-legal Organizational Personal Economic Cultural Time: quantity, frequency, duration, scheduling Natural and built environment; materials and equipment State and federal mandates, limits, requirements Administrative factors, including size, groupings, policies Backgrounds, abilities, interests of students, staff, parents Costs and benefits, broadly conceived Values and beliefs of school and community

Anyone who has attempted to work with teachers in bringing about change in schools knows that time inevitably emerges as a critical issue. Teachers want to know when they will learn about the expected changes, when they will have time to practice them prior to full implementation, and how they will fit into the daily routine. For many teachers, timeespecially instructional timeis seen as their most precious resource. This is why temporal actions, such as changing bell schedules and school calendars, often precede major curriculum changes. Effective principals understand how important the time issues are to teachers and direct their efforts toward ensuring that teachers have sufficient time to learn about, and implement curriculum change. Many physical factors related to the natural and built environment of the school are subject to state regulations and guidelines and may, or may not be in the principals immediate control. Whenever possible, the principal should try to obtain necessary materials and equipment to support teachers in curriculum implementation. Also, the principal should be aware of how the schools physical condition can have an impact on teaching and learning. When space and other resource allocation decisions are being made, they should promote the kind of learning articulated in the

schools vision, mission, and philosophical orientation. It perhaps goes without saying that the principal must be aware of any political and/or legal requirements before approving any curricular program for implementation. State and federal mandates must be followed, and appropriately documented for accountability considerations. Teachers, busy with their day-to-day instructional responsibilities, rely on the principal to inform them of legal requirements and to provide them with necessary information and paperwork associated with implementation. Organizational and personal factors are probably the most crucial ones for the principal to consider in curriculum implementation because they deal with human considerations, and all change ultimately depends on the willingness of the people involved to adapt. This means that there must be a high level of trust between the principal, teachers, and the larger school community. Principals must make the time and effort to know their teachers well. They must know the students well, and to a certain extent, the parents. Principals must understand not only the importance and relevance of the curricular innovation, but also have insight as to how the people involved will respond to the change. Effective principals provide support and encouragement for teachers, capitalizing on their strengths and reassuring them at times when they feel uncertain about implementing change. Economic considerations related to curriculum implementation, like physical ones, are often out of the direct control of the principal. This does not mean that he/she has no role to play in this area, however. On the contrary, the most effective principals are often those who have a clear picture of economic constraintsand potential resourcesat the federal, state, and local levels, and are able to minimize the constraints and capitalize on the resources. In these times of diminishing fiscal resources, principals are expected to lead their schools not only in curriculum development and implementation, but in helping to pay for the innovations. Principals today must be grant writers and entrepreneurs, fund-raisers and futurists; they need to be able to garner economic support for their schools from the community as well as private businesses and foundations. Furthermore, they need to work with teachers to decide where and how the schools funds will be spent to support curricular programs. Unlike the previous six frame factors, the cultural frame does not relate directly to the technical dimensions of curriculum implementation. A curriculum depends upon two sets of cultural factors: those of the school, and those of the community. Since the curriculum represents aspects of a groups culture that receive official recognition by the school, the principal must be aware of the accepted beliefs and norms governing peoples conduct in both the school and community and must guide the implementation process accordingly. It is especially important that the curriculum be developed to fit the needs of the community, rather than perceptions of those outside of the community. For example, if a community expects the development of academic programs to support college preparation for high school students, the curriculum should reflect these community expectations, even though the perception of those outside the community is that the students in that school are not college material. The most effective schools have curricula that

fit their unique cultural norms and values in promoting positive student outcomes. Special considerations: Supporting beginning teachers and emergency hires in curriculum and instruction Teachers who are still beginning teachers (1-4 years experience) should receive ongoing support to help them develop their pedagogical and classroom management skills. There is a growing body of research that suggests most teacher education occurs in the first four years of teaching. This means that colleagues with whom beginning teachers have the most contact during those formative years will have the most influence on their teaching. Unfortunately, the influence can be negative as well as positive. Therefore, it is important that principals be proactive in the process of helping beginning teachers and not just expect that the grade level or department chairs will take care of them. Pairing them with a competent and sympathetic veteran teacher seems to work best, but it is also important that no matter how busy, the principal must take the time to support new teachers. Finally, while no principal wants to hire a teacher out of his/her area of certification, it sometimes becomes necessary when fully qualified teachers are not available. Should this occur, it is incumbent upon the principal to provide as much support to that teacher as possible. As with beginning teachers, pairing teachers with competent and sympathetic colleagues for support is one technique that might be used. Another is to encourage beginning teachers to attend relevant workshops and enroll in courses that will help strengthen their competence and confidence. Most important, however, is for the principal to take an active role and not expect other teachers to assume this responsibility. Principals and the Hidden Curriculum The culture of a school is frequently strongly reflected in the hidden curriculum. The messages of the hidden curriculum often concern issues of gender, race, class, teamwork and fairplay, authority, school knowledge, and environmental awareness, among others. The hidden curriculum sends messages to students about who can succeed in what tasks; who has the right to make decisions; and what kinds of knowledge are legitimate, inferior or superior. Teachers and parents, through their value systems, can have a great deal of influence on the hidden curriculum. As a culture builder and school leader, however, the principal has the most potential to influence the hidden curriculum. If a school is to be effective, it is important that the hidden curriculum support the official and operational curricula. For example, if the schools mission, vision, and official curriculum state that all children can learn and emphasize their multiple intelligences, yet the school perpetuates academic contests and activities that reward students who excel in traditional subjects and areas (e.g., spelling bees, writing competitions, mathematics contests, science fairs), the hidden message is that academics are better than other learning, such as music or art. In a school where athletics are

strongly emphasized and academically oriented students who are not athletes are regarded as nerds, the hidden curriculum is that it is better to be an athlete than a brain. Several researchers have identified a characteristic of the hidden curriculum that occurs in classrooms and involves tacit agreements between teachers and students (Cornbleth ,1990). This is called negotiating the curriculum and it may manifest itself in various ways. Most often, however, curriculum negotiation pertains to issues of discipline or attendance. For example, a teacher might tell students that if they show up for class every day, they will pass. The implicit message here is that performance is secondary to attendance or, as Woody Allen puts it, 90 percent of life is just showing up. The danger in this case is that it can result in a diluted curriculum with lowered expectations of student performance. Because the hidden curriculum is often tied to the teacher and community values, it can be difficult for a principal to change it. This is especially true in large schools or schools with transient communities, such as military schools. Nevertheless, it is important for the principal to be as aware of the hidden curriculum as the official and operational curricula, and to be proactive in changing practices that reinforce negative behaviors and stereotypes. There are many culture building programs that principals can use to help build a sense of community that helps mitigate the negative aspects of the hidden curriculum. The Principal and the Null Curriculum The null curriculum focuses on what is intentionally left out of the curriculum, and why. The principal of a middle school offered a good illustration of the null curriculum when she said that, because more than half of the students in her school came from non-English speaking homes, she and her faculty made the conscious decision not to include foreign languages in their curriculum. She felt that many of her students were struggling to learn English and would benefit more from courses that capitalized their talents and interests, such as music and art, than from having to learn yet another language. Principals, particularly at the high school level, are increasingly faced with selecting the null curriculum as more courses are mandated for high school graduation. It sometimes comes down to teacher availability and student demandno Advanced Placement (AP) Physics teacher is available, and since only two students want AP Physics, it will not be offered. Or, it may come down to physical site capacitythere is a teacher qualified to teach aquaculture and many students want to take it, but there is no readily available source of water on campus. Whatever the reasons, the principal should think as carefully about what is not going to be part of the curriculum as what is in order to support the overall school mission and vision. Principals and the Co-curriculum The co-curriculum comprises all of the formal experiences outside of the school subjects. The importanceeven centralityof the co-curriculum to high school students has long been recognized. In fact, many activities that used to be part of the co-curriculum, such as the yearbook or

community service, are now part of the official curriculum and may be taken for high school credit. Interscholastic athletics, however, traditionally have been the cornerstones of most high school co-curricular programs, with athletic teams often serving as a focal point for the entire community. Because of recent increases in mathematics and science requirements for high school students, principals are now facing such questions as whether to allow students who participate in interscholastic athletics to receive credit for physical education courses. On one side of the debate are students, often supported by their parents, who feel pressured by growing homework demands in addition to athletic practice. Instead of settling for lower grades or opting out of athletics, these students feel they should receive credit for the time and effort they put into their sport. On the other side of the debate are physical education teachers who are concerned about students receiving a well-rounded physical education experience. Those teachers fear that allowing students to get credit for interscholastic athletic participation will limit their experiences, both physically and interpersonally. The principal sends a strong message to the students, as well as the community, in his/her choice of co-curricular emphasis and support. This message is often reflected in the schools norms and values, becoming evident in the hidden curriculum through the answers to a number of questions:

Do athletics take precedence over social functions? Do co-curricular activities primarily serve the needs of students, or those of the community? What kind of relationship does the Student Activities Coordinator (SAC) have with the principal? What is the SAC expected to do? Which traditions are maintained year after year, and which are discontinued? How and why are new co-curricular traditions started? Do students have a strong voice in developing their co-curricular activities, or are they controlled by the adults in the school?

Final Thoughts As this monograph suggests, the task of curricular leadership is complex and challenging . Principals need to possess a wide array of technical knowledge related to curriculum concepts, processes, and content. Equally important, however, they must understand the school culture and be able to work with the entire school communityteachers, parents, students, and support staffin leading and supporting curriculum implementation. Furthermore, principals must be proactive in obtaining resources to support curriculum development, they must ensure that teachers receive the time and staff development opportunities to implement curriculum change, and they must keep a constant eye on the bottom line of positive student outcomes.

This myriad of responsibilitiesat a time when state and district resource people are being cutleads to the inevitable question, Who provides support to the principal? Fortunately, Hawaii and the Pacific region have the Hawaii School Leadership Academy and the Pacific Region Educational Laboratory (PREL) where principals can call for consultation. These, as well as professional organizations, such as the Hawaii Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the National Staff Development Council, are resources that principals should find helpful in supporting their curriculum leadership activities.

Bibliography Cornbleth, C. (1990). Curriculum in context. New York: The Falmer Press. DuFour, R. & Berkey, T. (1995). The principal as staff developer. Journal of Staff Development, 16(4), 2-6. Erlandson, D. A. & Witters-Churchill, L. J. (1990). Advances in the principalship: Performance and reflection. In Thurston, P. W. & Lotto, L. S. (Eds.) Advances in educational administration, Volume 1, (Part B): Changing perspectives on the school. (pp. 121-162). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, Inc. Hargreaves, A. & Dawe, R. (1989). Coaching as unreflective practice: Contrived collegiality or collaborative culture. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Maehr, M. L. (1991). The psychological environment of the school: A focus for school leadership. In Thurston, P. W. & Zodhiates, P. P. (Eds.) Advances in educational administration, Volume 2: School Leadership. (pp. 51-81). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, Inc. Murphy, J. (1990). Principal instructional leadership. In Thurston, P. W. & Lotto, L. S. (Eds.) Advances in educational administration, Volume 1, (Part B): Changing perspectives on the school. (pp. 163-200). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, Inc. Posner, G. (1995). Analyzing the curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Sergiovanni, T. J. & Starratt, R. J. (1993). Supervision: A redefinition. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc. Tanner, B., Canady, R. L. & Rettig, M. D. (1995). Scheduling time to maximize staff development opportunities. Journal of Staff Development, 16(4), 14-19. Weiss, C. H., Cambone, J., &Wyeth, A. (1992). Trouble in paradise: Teacher conflicts in shared decision making. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 350-367.

About the Authors Stacey E. Marlow, Ed. D., is Assistant Professor of Educational Administration at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. She teaches a variety of courses, but her special areas of interest are curriculum administration and instructional supervision. Before becoming a university professor, Dr. Marlow was a teacher and administrator for 13 years. Norman J. Minehira has been principal of Leilehua High School for the past six years. Prior to that, he was a high school special education teacher and vice principal. Mr. Minehira holds a Masters degree in Educational Administration from the University of Hawaii.