Conclusion
Supervision, the most prevalent of the control mechanisms studied, was used in all of the schools to varying degrees. The frequency of superintendent visits fluctuated between a high of almost every day, in the case where the superintendent and the principal shared the same facility, to two times a year. Superintendents did visit schools without formal sessions with the principals. Several principals described their superintendents' visits as “informal walk-throughs.” District size did not influence the frequency of supervision by the superintendents. Schools in both large and small districts received roughly the same number of visits. Ninety-two percent of the principals received a medium or high number of visits. In some schools, particularly unit districts composed of grades kindergarten through 12, principals were evaluated by associate superintendents for secondary education. Central office personnel usually visited several times each month. Principals from large districts received fewer visits from central office staff than did principals from medium or small districts. Most principals perceived the visits by their superintendents and central office personnel as nonthreatening. When superintendents and central office administrators visited schools, they added to the system of control by collecting information about all aspects of schooling, including the climate. In general, principals perceived supervision as light, and felt that schools and principals were afforded considerable autonomy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Blau, P.M. (1955).The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blauner, R. (1964).Alienation and freedom: the factory worker and his industry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982).Corporate cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dornbusch, S.D., & Scott, W.R. (1975).Evaluation and the exercise of authority. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Friesen, D., & Duignan, P. (1980). How superintendents spend their working time.The Canadian Administrator, 19(5), 1–4.
Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M. (1984).Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Orlando: Academic Press.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1987). Instructional leadership in the school context. In W. Greenfield (ed.),Instructional leadership: problems, issues, and controversies. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hannaway, J., & Sproull, L.S. (1978–1979). Who's running the show? Coordination and control in educational organizations.Administrator's Notebook, 27(9), 1–4.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1984).Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Mintzberg, H. (1973).The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.
Mintzberg, H. (1979).The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Morris, V.C., Crowson, R.L., Porter-Gehrie, C., & Hurwitz, E., Jr. (1984).Principals in action: the reality of managing schools.
Murphy, J. (1988). Methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems in the study of administrator instructional leadership.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(2), 117–139.
Murphy, J. (1990). Principal instructional leadership. In P.W. Thurston and L.S. Lotto (eds.),Advances in educational administration: changing perspectives on the school, Vol. 1, Part B, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Peterson, K.D. (1985). Supervising and evaluating principals: lessons from effective school districts.Educational Leadership, 43(2), 78–82.
Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Peterson, K.D. (1986). The administrative control of principals in effective school districts: the supervision and evaluation functions.The Urban Review, 18(3), 149–175.
Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., Peterson, K.D., & Lotto, L.S. (1987, Summer). The administrative control of principals in effective school districts.Journal of Educational Administration, 25(2), 161–192.
Myers, E. (1993).Principals' perceptions of administrative control in secondary schools: an exploratory study. Unpublished dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Ouchi, W.G. (1977). The relationship between organizational structure and organizational control.Administrative Science Quarterly 22, 95–113.
Ouchi, W.G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms.Management Science, 25(9), 833–848.
Ouchi, W.G., & Maguire, M.A. (1975). Organizational control: two functions.Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 559–569.
Peterson, K.D. (1978–1979). The principal's tasks.Administrator's Notebook, 26, 1–4.
Peterson, K.D. (1983).Mechanisms of administrative control in educational organizations: An exploratory study. Washington, DC: National Institute of Educations U.S. Department of Education.
Peterson, K.D. (1984a). Mechanisms of administrative control over managers in educational organizations.Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 573–597.
Peterson, K.D. (1984b). The effect of district size on the use of hierarchical and non-hierarchical mechanisms of control. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Wolcott, H. (1973).The man in the principal's office. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Vanderbilt University
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Myers, E. The administrative control of high school principals by superintendents: the supervisory function. J Pers Eval Educ 7, 67–79 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00972350
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00972350