Three Images: What Principals Do in Curriculum Implementation

Curriculum Inquiry
ISSN: 0362-6784 (Print) 1467-873X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcui20
Three Images: What Principals Do in Curriculum

Implementation
Shirley M. Hord & Gene E. Hall
To cite this article: Shirley M. Hord & Gene E. Hall (1987) Three Images: What
Principals Do in Curriculum Implementation, Curriculum Inquiry, 17:1, 55-89, DOI:
10.1080/03626784.1987.11075277
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1987.11075277
Published online: 15 Dec 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcui20
Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 01 March 2016, At: 14:20
Three Images: What Principals
Do in Curriculum Implementation
SHIRLEY M. HORD
Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory
Austin, Texas
GENE E. HALL
University of Florida
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 14:20 01 March 2016
ABSTRACT
The Principal Teacher Interaction (PTI) Study is an analysis of what principals

do on a day-to-day basis to bring about curriculum implementation and school
improvement. For one year, the study documented the interventions of princi-
pals and others facilitating implementation of new curriculum programs in nine
elementary schools across the United States. The study asked, (1) What do
principals do as change facilitators? and (2) What is the relationship between
change facilitating style and implementation success?
Two analytical frameworks, The Taxonomy of Interventions and the Anat-
omy of Interventions, were used to identify and analyze interventions, study
patterns of change facilitation, and refine descriptions of three styles of facilita-
tion: the responder, manager, and initiator styles. Data on teacher's concerns,
their use of the new curricula, and the operational forms the new programs
assumed in the classroom were used to measure implementation success. The
study found that effectiveness in facilitating change increases from responder
to manager to initiator styles. The correlation between style and implementa-
tion success was 0. 74, significant to the 0.01 level.
Another major finding was discovery of the second change facilitator (CF)
who assists in the change process. The second CF appears to play a comple-
mentary role to that of the principal. The configuration of a change facilitator
team is a key to understanding the change process and has direct implications
for training and future research on school improvement efforts.
The research described herein was conducted under contract with the National
Institute of Education. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the National Institute of Educa-
tion. No endorsement by the National Institute of Education should be inferred.
© 1987 by The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Curriculum Inquiry 17:1 (1987)
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0362-6784/87/010055-35$04.00
56 SHIRLEY M. HORD AND GENE E. HALL/CI
Since the 1950s, school improvement has become a matter of in-

creasing interest and concern in Western Europe, Australia, North
America, and elsewhere. School change has been widely planned for
and abundantly discussed and written about. Efforts have been
mounted to improve schools at the school, district, state, and nation-
al level. In the 1960s, the primary approach to school improvement
was the delivery of new programs to schools. Millions of dollars were
spent by the U.S. government, by commercial interests, and by
schools in the development and dissemination of new curriculum
programs. However, in the 1970s, evidence began to accumulate that
the new-programs approach often did not produce the hoped-for out-
comes. Consequently, understanding the change process was given
emphasis equal to that of innovation development.
The Research and Development Center for Teacher Education
(RDCTE) at the University of Texas at Austin has conducted a series
of research studies on change in schools. The studies have sought to
learn what happens during improvement efforts, what occurs within
a school to improve it, who the actors are, and what they do. This
research has resulted in the understanding that change is a long-term
process rather than a discrete event, and that the key to successful
school improvement is not only new programs but more importantly
the participants within the school: classroom teachers, resource
teachers, principals, assistant principals, staff developers, and others.
The studies have focused on what the individual user does and on
what happens to an innovation (a curriculum program or practice
new to the user) in the process of its implementation.
In this article, recent findings about the change leadership role of
principals are presented. The concept of change facilitator style, the
role of the second change facilitator, and their relationship to imple-
mentation success at the classroom level are explored. The presenta-
tion begins with a brief review of the past studies and concepts that
preceded the Principal Teacher Interaction Study. Following pre-
sentation of this background is a description of study findings and
discussion of implications.
STUDIES OF TEACHERS,
INNOVATIONS AND INTERVENTIONS
Earlier RDCTE studies demonstrated the importance of understand-

ing teacher's concerns (Hall and Rutherford 1976) and use of an
innovation (Hall and Loucks 1981; Hall, Loucks, Rutherford, and
Newlove 1975). These studies verified key dimensions of the Con-
cerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) and demonstrated their useful-
ness for facilitating innovation implementation in the classroom. The
research has provided diagnostic instruments for assessing three key
dimensions of implementation: teachers' Stages of Concern about
the innovation, teachers' Levels of Use of the innovation, and opera-
THREE IMAGES: WHAT PRINCIPALS DO 57
tiona! characteristics or Innovation Configurations. These conceptual

instruments can be used to plan for and assess the effectiveness of
program implementation.
Influences outside the classroom also have an impact on school
improvement and recent RDCTE studies have focused on interven-
tions, actions and events that influence use of the innovation (Hall
and Hord 1984 ). The initial studies focused on collecting descrip-
tions of interventions made during implementation of innovations.
From these data and a search of the literature, the researchers devel-
oped definitions and conceptual frameworks that can be used to
describe and classify interventions in the school setting (Hall and

Hord 1984; Hall, Zigarmi and Hord 1979; Hord, Hall, and Zigarmi
1980). In one district implementation study, nine schools from a
sample of 20 elementary schools were selected for secondary data
analysis. Analysis revealed the schools sorted into three groups with
different implementation outcomes. Searching for a variable that
might account for these differences, the researchers generated ex-
haustive lists of possible factors. When all factors except one, the
schools' principals, had been eliminated, the researchers asked dis-
trict personnel to classify the principals of the nine schools, based on
the leadership style of the principal. The principal groupings they
unanimously chose corresponded to the three groups that the re-
searchers had established based on implementation at the classroom
level. As a consequence, the researchers hypothesized that the degree
of implementation in school change is related to what the principal
does (Hall, Hord, and Griffin 1980). In a second study, the previous-
ly developed conceptual frameworks were piloted and refined into
coding procedures and instruments that could be used to document
and analyze interventions (Hord 1981; Rutherford 1981 ). Subse-
quently, the researchers launched an in depth study, the Principal
Teacher Interaction (PTI) Study, to examine the principal's role in
facilitating change (Hall and Rutherford 1983; Hord and Goldstein
1982; Hord, Huling, and Stiegelbauer 1983; Huling, Hall and Hord
1982). The study documented the day-to-day interventions of ele-
mentary school principals as they facilitated implementation of par-
ticular curriculum innovations by their teachers, refined the descrip-
tions of three facilitator styles identified in the earlier studies, and
investigated the impact of these styles on curriculum innovation im-
plementation.
Program improvement can originate from two directions: from the
bottom up or the top down. Quality programs can begin from the
"grass roots" when one or several teachers identify a specific need
and develop an educational program to address that need. Other
teachers faced with similar situations may learn about the program
and adopt it for use in their own classrooms. Change can also occur
on a broader scale when districts or state boards of education iden-
tify educational needs and adopt or develop new programs to address
them. Although these two approaches to change require different
strategies for success, they both occur in stages and require sustained
support from outside as well as inside the classroom. Teachers need
assistance as they strive to improve their teaching practice, and the
principal gives that support directly, or through the assistance of
others.
The PTI Study has proven to be more timely than the researchers
had anticipated. Increasingly, principals are being formally charged
by districts and states with the responsibility to facilitate changes
that will improve student achievement. However, principals are sel-
dom given the preservice, specialized training necessary to function
as effective change facilitators (Pitner 1982). The unspoken assump-

tion seems to be that they already have the knowledge and skills to
accomplish the desired improvements, but often they are unprepared
to serve effectively in this role. Unfortunately, if superintendents
and boards wanted to offer training for their principals, they would
find training programs available, but inconclusive data upon which
approach(es) to advocate for their principals. The research base on
principal behavior for effective change is limited, and it is often dif-
ficult to identify concrete behaviors that make a difference.
In recent years there have been more studies of the role of the
principal in school change (Berman and McLaughlin 1975; Pullan
1982; Leith wood, Ross, Montgomery and Maynes 1978; Reinhard,
Arends, Kutz, Lovell, and Wyant 1980). Some studies addressed the
principal as instructional leader (Cotton and Savard 1980; Corbett
1982; Fege 1980; Lipham 1981; Persell and Cookson 1982). Other
studies have investigated specifically the principal's role in school
improvement (Leithwood and Montgomery 1982; Little, 1981;
Rutter, Ouston, Maughan, Mortimore, and Smith 1979; Venezky and
Winfield 1979). Although these studies have emphasized the critical
importance of the principal as a variable in school improvement,
they have not tended to pinpoint the principal's day-to-day behaviors
associated with effective change. Many studies have been normative
in design, offering only broad generalizations about what the typical
principal does (Morris 1981 ). Given the recent trend toward charg-
ing the principal to supply leadership for school improvement, it is
vital to find out what principals and other change facilitators actually
do to bring about effective change. The PTI study was undertaken
to gain such information about leadership behaviors that could be
useful in planning future school improvement efforts and in design-
ing training for the principals' change facilitator role.
The PTI study found that principals have different styles of facili-
tating change. Three particular styles were observed in detail, and it
was found that these three styles have differing impacts on change
efforts. The study also showed that principals do not work alone
but rely on other key individuals to assist in facilitating the change
process. This article describes the procedures and instruments used
in the PTI study, reports the study findings, and presents descrip-
tions of the responder, manager, and initiator styles of change

facilitation.
THE PRINCIPAL TEACHER INTERACTION STUDY
During the course of an entire school year, the PTI study identified
and described the interventions of principals and others related to
implementation of new curriculum programs in nine elementary
schools. Major questions addressed by the study included: (1) What
do principals do as change facilitators? (2) What is the relationship

between change facilitation style and implementation success?
The Study Sites
The three school districts chosen for the study represented geograph-
ically different parts of the United Stages, were implementing cur-
riculum innovations in different subject areas, and were in different
years of district-wide implementation. In the Pacific school district,
the three study schools were in their first .year of implementing a
new writing composition program. In the Atlantic district, three
schools were beginning the second year of implementing a criterion-
referenced mathematics curriculum. Three schools in the Central
Mountain district were in the third year of using a revised science
curriculum.
The innovations selected for the study were initiated by the three
districts based on broad community input and were seen by the
teachers as responsive to genuine educational needs. When inter-
viewed, teachers often told researchers that the new programs were
a great improvement over what they had been using in their class-
rooms previously, even though they understood that it would take
some time and effort to bec'Jme familiar and comfortable with the
new programs. For example . the new math program was initiated to
improve the achievement record of district elementary pupils on the
state assessment test for math. The need for improvement can be
illustrated by the fact that third-grade pupils, on the average, were
scoring at or above the state-wide average on only 1 of the 14 math-
ematics standards being assessed, and fifth graders did not score at
or above a single standard. Teachers were using a wide variety of
textbooks and were using the books as their mathematics program.
Leadership at the district level made a decision to provide all
schools with a consistent math curriculum designed to include the
sequence of state-mandated competencies for each grade level. The
curriculum was designed with broad-based teacher input, and text-
books were selected that matched the program as closely as possible.
Using their familiar teaching practice, teachers used the textbook
sequence of objectives as their "new" program. As a result, they

taught some district math competencies out of sequence or omitted
them altogether, and they experienced difficulty in organizing in-
structional materials and in using the mastery tests for assessment.
The teachers needed training and problem-solving assistance in under-
standing and working with a competency-based curriculum.
Curriculum improvement consists of two major phases, develop-
ment and implementation. Many schools and school districts invest
a considerable amount of time and resources in the development of
curriculum but ignore the need for a parallel investment in curricu-
lum implementation. The three study districts did not equate imple-
mentation with the delivery of a new program to the classroom, but
made a sustained effort to support teachers in the implementation
process, through supplying training and resources, and expecting that
the principals would provide leadership.
The Study Principals
RDCTE researchers developed rudimentary descriptions of three par-

ticular principal change facilitation styles based on the earlier studies
of interventions and from an extensive review of the literature on
leadership, change, and educational administration (Rutherford,
Hord, Huling and Hall 1983). The three styles do not include all
possible styles, but are three distinct approaches to change leader-
ship. These descriptions were used to guide selection of the st'udy
principals and to furnish hypotheses for the study (Hall, Rutherford,
and Griffin 1982). A team of district personnel in each of the three
study districts reviewed the descriptions of the three styles and
nominated one principal they considered to be representative of each
style.
Data Collection and Analysis
Principals were individually trained to identify interventions they

and others made and to report their interventions in sufficient detail
to allow the research staff to code the interventions on various
dimensions (Hord and Hall 1982). Principals interventions were re-
corded through logs maintained by the principals and their assistant
principals and through on-site observations, face-to-face interviews,
and weekly telephone interviews conducted by the research staff
(Goldstein and Rutherford 1982). Intervention data were also col-
lected from teachers as a cross-informant verification strategy and as
a means of assessing the effectiveness of selected interventions.
Teacher perceptions of principal interventions were obtained by in-
dividual on-site interviews of all teachers conducted three times by
research staff.
Data were also collected on other variables. To assess the impact

of interventions on classroom implementation of the programs, in-
struments developed in earlier RDCTE studies were used to measure
teacher concerns about the innovations, teacher use of innovations,
and the operational forms the innovations took in their classrooms
(Huling, Hall, Hord, and Rutherford 1983). School and district con-
textual variables that might affect innovation implementation were
identified through two surveys developed for the study. In addition
to structured data collection, research staff kept field notes on their
visits to the schools, subscribed to local newspapers to monitor com-
munity events, and followed school district news. One researcher was
primarily responsible for data collection at each school site, but sev-
eral researchers collected data at each site so that they could cross-
check perceptions.
Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze
the data. Quantitative methods included coding and tabulating inter-
ventions and administering instruments to measure the impact of
interventions. These analyses were used to assess the effect of the
three change facilitator styles on program implementation. Qualita-
tive methods included mapping the relationships between interven-
tions, writing descriptions of intervention effects, developing case
studies and reports on selected topics, and conducting debriefing
discussions. The three researchers responsible for each district com-
pared information on the district, met with researchers in other dis-
tricts to make cross-site comparisons, and talked with school or
district representatives to cross-check their information. The qual-
itative methods were used to gain an understanding of each study
school situation and to develop descriptions and hypotheses that
could be tested, and to cross-check and verify quantitative findings.
Effect Variables
Three dimensions of change developed in earlier studies were used to
assess the impact of interventions: Stages of Concern, Levels of Use,
and Innovation Configurations.
Stages of Concern is measured by a psychometrically rigorous
paper and pencil instrument that assesses teachers' concerns as they
change during the course of implementing an innovation (Hall,
George, and Rutherford 1977). Concerns theory posits that early in
a change effort, teachers have more intense self concerns about an
innovation. As implementation gets underway, their concerns tend to
shift more to the task of using the innovation. Ultimately, if the in-
novation is appropriate and the necessary supports are available,
various kinds of impact concerns can become most intense. The SoC
Questionnaire which consists of 35 items is designed to assess these
Stages of Concern. Teachers respond by indicating their degree of
concern on a Likert scale for each of the items. The measure yields
percentile scores and a profile of concerns for individuals and groups.
Levels of Use is assessed through a focused interview with a pre-

scribed set of questions designed to describe how performance
changes as the teacher becomes more familiar with an innovation and
more skillful in using it (Loucks, Newlove, and Hall 1976). Eight dis-
tinct Levels of Use have been identified (Hall, Loucks, Rutherford,
and New love 1975). In general, individuals first orient themselves to
the innovation.· The first actual use of an innovation is usually mech-
anical, characterized by short-term planning and disjointed organiza-
tion and coordination. As experience increases, teachers establish a
routine for use of the innovation, and eventually they may refine
their use through formal or informal assessment of student needs.

When administered by trained and certified interviewers, the Levels
of Use interview is useful for assessing the state of implementation
of an innovation.
Innovation Configurations describes the operational form of an
innovation as it is being used by each teacher (Hall and Loucks
1981 ). A checklist is used to determine the operational components
and component variations of an innovation. For example, the com-
ponents of an individualized program in mathematics might include
the way in which materials are used, the basis for grouping students,
methods of testing, and use of test results. To construct an IC com-
ponent checklist developers and facilitators are interviewed to deter-
mine what the innovation is "supposed" to look like in practice, and
a preliminary set of components is prepared. A small sample of
users are observed and interviewed to identify the range of variation
in use and to refine the list of components. The checklist of compo-
nents and their variations is refined and ultimately completed for
each user.
Data on Stages of Concern, Levels of use, and Innovation Configu-
rations were collected for teachers in each of the study schools. To
obtain an estimate of Implementation Success, a key central office
administrator from each district and the entire research staff rated
the study schools on each of the three diagnostic dimensions. The
rankings were combined to obtain a total implementation score
(Huling, Hall, Hard, and Rutherford 1983).
Intervention Variables
Two analytical frameworks, the Taxonomy of Interventions (Hall

and Hard 1984) and the Anatomy of Interventions (Hard, Hall, and
Zigarmi 1980) were used to focus the documentation of interven-
tions and subsequently to analyze the intervention data.
The Taxonomy of Interventions was developed by analyzing data
from prior implementation studies with the purpose of identifying
levels of interventions. The levels are hierarchical, ranging from
global and general to specific and concrete (Hall and Hard 1984 ).
The broadest level is that of policy, followed in descending order by
game plan, game plan component, strategy, tactic, and incident (Hall
and Hord 1984). A policy is a rule or guideline that may affect the
change process. The game plan is the overall or generalized plan of
action for the change effort. The game plan can be broken into func-
tional components such as organizational support, training, consulta-
tion, monitoring and evaluation, external communication, and dis-
semination. Strategies are frameworks for translating the game plan
components into concrete actions. A tactic is a set of small actions
that operationalizes a strategy, such as a workshop, a course, or a
series of meetings. An incident, the smallest-sized intervention, is a
single action or event targeted toward one or more persons. It may
be a one-of-a-kind happening or may aggregate with other incidents

to form a tactic and a strategy.
Sublevels further define incidents according to the degree of com-

plexity of the action.
An isolated incident: A single action separated in space, time or
purpose from other actions.
A simple incident: A single action or interaction that is functional-
ly related to other interventions.
A chain incident: A series of the same simple incident delivered to
different targets.
A repeated incident: A series of the same simple incident delivered
to the same target more than once.
A complex incident: A set of related simple actions within a short
time frame.
The Anatomy of Interventions is a framework for analyzing the

internal parts of an incident intervention along seven dimensions:
Sublevel: Degree of complexity of the action

Source: Person(s) who act(s) or events that occur to influence
use of the innovation
Target: Person{s)/process toward whom the intervention is
directed
Function: The purpose(s) of the intervention
Medium: The mode or form of action between the Source and
Target
Flow: The direction of the action
Location: Where the intervention takes place (Hord, Hall, and
Zigarmi 1980, p. 7).
Within each dimension, categories or kinds specify possible varia-

tions. For example, kinds of sources include students, individual
teachers, teachers as a group, district decision makers, and others.
Using these categories and coding rules refined during previous im-
plementation studies, researchers coded each incident-level interven-
tion on a separate coding form. One staff member was responsible
for integrating all revisions of coding rules, answering staff questions

about coding and reviewing all completed coding forms. Coders were
given two specially designed reliability tasks to estimate their con-
sistency in identifying innovation-related incident interventions in
the raw data and in coding the dimensions of identified interventions
(Hall, Hord, Ruling, Rutherford, and Stiegelbauer 1983).
In the first task, the nine project staff were asked to listen to three
tapes of data collection interviews and to make a list of incident in-
terventions related to the innovation being studied, using established
definitions and coding rules. The staff then met as a group to critique
the task, agree on the description of each identified intervention, and

refine the identification rules in the few areas where there was a
potential for confusion. Coders had an average of 79% correct iden-
tifications, or 41 out of 53 possible interventions. Accuracy on
individual codings ranged from 68% to 91%.
In the second reliability task, the project staff coded the subparts
of 33 identified incident interventions from one lengthy and rela-
tively complex interview tape. Percentages of agreement ranged from
73% on coding functions to 98% on coding locations. The task led
to the discovery that several possible codes and coding combinations
were acceptable for several interventions. The staff further refined
the coding rules to make the various categories more distinct, which
heightened the potential for coding reliability.
Overall, the level of agreement reached on both tasks was consid-
ered acceptable. Probably, the percentages of agreement represented
a lower bounds estimate. Coders appeared to be more accurate when
coding tapes from their own study site because of their knowledge
of previous events and contextual conditions. During actual data
analysis, all intervention codings were cross-checked by the staff
member in charge of coding rules.
Another coding issue related to the extent to which researchers
were "missing" interventions. Through discussion and cross checks
researchers concluded that they had probably gotten close to the
"bottom of the barrel" in collecting descriptions of principal inter-
ventions that could have significantly affected the larger change
effort.
Three types of intervention maps (Zigarmi and Goldstein 1979)
were developed to organize the qualitative data on the relationships
between interventions. To gain an overall picture of the change
effort, intervention maps were charted by arranging coded incidents
into hierarchical groups of tactics and strategies under game plan
components. The maps were built from the bottom up rather than
the top down to gain more complete and accurate information about
how the change effort actually occurred. For example, higher level
interventions such as game plan components were often not pre-
planned or verbalized by the subjects from whom data were ob-
tained. By starting with incidents, it was possible to infer some of
those larger clusters. Antecedent maps were used to obtain a more
detailed picture of the way in which one intervention led to another.

Critical incident maps allowed researchers to identify events having a
critical impact on the change effort, to see significant relationships
between clusters of interventions, and to understand how contextual
influences and roles related to the change process.
The quantitative analysis of the coded interventions was conduc-
ted in two steps. First, the data were analyzed using the standard
SPSS package for developing cross-tabs (Brown 1974). All possible
combinations of levels and dimensions of interventions were cross-
tabulated. With each clustering and combination cell, row and col-
umn frequencies and proportions were calculated. A next step was

to determine whether or not the principals behaved in distinctive
ways in relation to a particular change facilitator style. To test for
possible differences in intervention behaviors in the various cells
within the cross-tabs, a Bio-Medical Statistical Package was employed
for conducting tests of independence of cells using the x2 statistic
(Brown 1979). When a significant difference was identified at the
0.05 level by the x2 statistic, a second search was initiated to iden-
tify those cells that contributed most to the significance in the x2
statistic. With this cell search procedure, it was possible to identify
those cells within the cross-tab matrix that appeared to be most
different from expected values and contributed more to the chi-
square's being significant. This analysis provided a wealth of informa-
tion about areas of apparent similarity and difference in change facil-
itator style.
Data were quantitatively analyzed at the incident intervention
level because the focus of the study was on what principals actually
do to facilitate change on a day-to-day basis. Incident interventions
are the basic building blocks for higher level interventions. As these
data analyses will illustrate, these small actions appear to be the key
to success or failure of a change effort and are critical to understand-
ing the change process at the time that it occurs, and in retrospective
analyses. While each incident intervention by itself tends to have
minimal effect, their combined effect appears to "make or break" a
change effort.
In order to integrate qualitative and quantitative data and to
reduce the findings of a large data base into a coherent description of
the three styles, a set of descriptive dimensions of style was devel-
oped. The dimensions included the change facilitator's vision, struc-
turing the school as a work place, structuring involvement with
change, sharing responsibility, decisionmaking, guiding and support-
ing, and structuring the professional role (Hall, Rutherford, Hord,
and Huling 1984). Within each dimension, researchers wrote brief
descriptors characterizing the normative approach that appeared to
be typical of each style. These descriptors were used as a basis for
writing narrative descriptions of the three styles.
In order to correlate principal change facilitator styles with imple-
mentation success, it was necessary to rate principals according to
style using an interval scale. Researchers familiar with each principal

assigned a score to the principal using a scale ranged from 0 to 100.
A score of 30 represented the typical responder style, a score of 60
the typical manager style, and a score of 90 the typical initiator
style. Consensus among the researchers was extremely high on rating
the principals. A Pearson product moment correlation was calculated
to estimate the relationship between principal style and overall im-
plementation success.
DESCRIPTION OF THE THREE STYLES

Style is defined as the gestalt of knowledge, concerns, behaviors, and

tone as reflected in the motivations and interventions of the facilita-
tor (Rutherford, Hord, Huling, and Hall 1983). The descriptions of
the three styles as refined in the PTI Study are as follows:
Responders place heavy emphasis on allowing teachers and others the oppor-
tunity to take the lead. They believe their primary role is to maintain a smooth
running school by focusing on traditional administrative tasks, keeping teachers
content and treating students well. Teachers are viewed as strong professionals
who are able to carry out their instructional role with little guidance. Respond-
ers emphasize the personal side of their relationships with teachers and others.
Before they make decisions they often give everyone an opportunity to have
input so as to weigh their feelings or to allow others to make the decision. A
related characteristic is the tendency toward making decisions in terms of imme-
diate circumstances rather than in terms of longer range instructional or school
goals. This tendency seems to be due in part to their desire to please others and in
part to their limited vision of how their school and staff should change in the future.
Managers represent a broader range of behaviors. They demonstrate respon-
sive behaviors in answer to situations or people and they also initiate actions
in support of the change effort. The variations in their behaviors seem to be
linked to their rapport with teachers and central office staff as well as to how
well they understand and buy into a particular change effort. Managers work
without fanfare to provide basic support to facilitate teachers' use of the innova-
tion. They keep teachers informed about decisions and are sensitive to teacher
needs. They will defend their teachers from what are perceived as excessive de-
mands. When they learn that the central office wants something to happen in
their school they then become very involved with their teachers in making it
happen. Yet, they do not typically initiate attempts to move beyond the basics
of what is imposed.
Initiators have clear, decisive long-range policies and goals that transcend but in-
clude implementation of the current innovation. They tend to have very strong
beliefs about what good schools and teaching should be like and work intensely
to attain this vision. Decisions are made in relation to their goals for the school
and in terms of what they believe to be best for students, based on current
knowledge of classroom practice. Initiators have strong expectations for stu-
dents, teachers and themselves. They convey and monitor these expectations
through frequent contacts with teachers and clear explication of how the school
is to operate and how teachers are to teach. When they feel it is in the best in-
terest of their school, particularly the students, Initiators will seek changes in
district programs or policies or they will reinterpret them to suit the needs of the
school. Initiators will be adamant but not unkind. They solicit input from staff
and then make decisions in terms of the goal of the school even if some are ruf-
fled by their directness and high expectations (Hall, Rutherford, Hord, and
Ruling 1984).
Although there is variation within the groups of responders, mana-

gers, and initiators, the three normative style descriptions appear to
be distinct when the entire pattern of style dimensions is consid-
ered.
Responders are easily distinguished from the other styles by their
preoccupation with the feelings of others and their inclination to let
others supply the energy and take the lead. Managers are primarily
concerned about teachers. They express more concern for the wel-
fare of the faculty, and they take steps to protect teachers from
overload by performing a great many more intervention tasks them-
selves rather than sharing the "burden" with others. Because they
like to run an orderly school, managers may also prefer to make in-
terventions themselves so that they are "done right." While respond-
ers do not reach out proactively to any population in the school, and
managers center their concerns on teachers, initiators are more apt
to have consequence concerns for students in mind. Their energy is
given to formulating a vision of the school and its programs for
students and pushing teachers to implement policies, programs, and
practices by which students will gain.
The three styles can be viewed as positions on a continuum of
style. It seems likely that few individual principals or other change
facilitators fit exactly into one particular style. However, it appears
that every change facilitator does have a predominant style that
tends to persist through time and varying circumstances. The three
styles do not represent the entire spectrum of possible styles. How-
ever, they do represent three quite different ways that principals
approach their facilitator role.
PRINCIPALS AND THEIR SECOND

CHANGE FACILITATOR
A striking feature of the study was the number of incident interven-

tions made by the principals during one school year related to im-
plementation of the curriculum innovations. A total of 1855 incid-
ent-level interventions was collected from a broad array of inform-
ants in the schools and the districts. Of this number, the nine study
principals were the source of 583, or nearly one third of the inter-
ventions occurring in the schools. There were similar numbers of
intervention totals for all the districts, regardless of the year of
implementation.
These data support the proposition that innovations require sus-
tained support over a period of time if they are to be implemented
successfully. However, principals, researchers, and policy makers may
not always recognize the amount of effort that is required for sue-
cessful facilitation of change. Over and over, teachers told researchers

of incident interventions by principals that appeared to be critically
important in supporting individual teachers or groups of teachers.
Yet the principals did not always remember the incidents or recog-
nize their significance, nor were they alone in supplying interven-
tions.
An unexpected finding of the study was discovery of the role of
the Second Change Facilitator (Hord, Stiegelbauer, and Hall 1984 ).
Although the study was intended to focus on the role of principals
in facilitating change, it also found that principals did not work
alone. All the study principals were assisted by a second CF who

made many incident interventions. During initial field work and early
data collection activities, each researcher independently discovered
this person- and in some cases two persons- who appeared to be an
important additional source of interventions. Their interventions
were documented closely, using the same procedures as those used
with the study principals.
The second CF role occurred in a variety of ways. In some schools,
it was the assistant principal, often described by the district as a
curriculum assistant with responsibility for instruction and curricu-
lum implemen.tation. In other schools it was a special teacher such as
a resource teacher with part or full-time responsibility for facilitating
the school improvement effort. In others, a district-level specialist
or curriculum coordinator assumed active responsibility for change
facilitation within a particular school. In some cases, the facilitation
process was enhanced by what appeared to be a facilitator team
involving some combination of principal, assistant principal, school
site resource persons, or district level personnel. When principals
were not active in directing implementation efforts, outside facilita-
tors took more initiative.
The role of the second CF appeared to be related to the style of
the principal. For example, in schools with responder principals, the
second CFs made more interventions than the principals. In schools
with initiator principals, the second CFs made about the same num-
ber of interventions as did their principals. In schools with manager-
style principals, the second CFs made the lowest number of inter-
ventions.
There was an apparent pattern between the total numbers of in-
terventions in a school and the activities of the principal and the
second change facilitator. The study data indicated that the fre-
quency of intervention varied with change facilitator style. Respond-
er principals made the lowest average number of interventions, mana-
ger principals had the highest average number, and initiators ranked
in between the other two styles. However, when the total number of
interventions by all sources in the school was considered, initiator-
led schools had the highest number, and the lowest total number of
interventions was observed in the responder-led schools. The correla-
tion between principal style and average total number of interven-
tions was 0.61 (p = 0.04), which indicates a pattern to the relation-

ship between principal style and the total number of interventions
observed in each school.
Within this general pattern, it appears that once the principal de-
fines his/her role, the change facilitator responsibilities of others are
configured accordingly. The general pattern of relationship between
the principals change facilitator style and the frequency of interven-
ing by their second change facilitator appears to be one of filling in
where they are needed. If the principal does less, the second CF does
more; if the principal does more, the second CF does relatively less.
This juggling of intervention responsibility is also tied to the amount
of opportunity to intervene that is made available by the principal

which appears to be related to style. For example, initiator-style
principals did a lot and they made it possible for their second CFs to
do a lot. Manager-style principals appear to try and do it all them-
selves, which places limits on the intervention opportunities of their
second CFs. Responder-style principals did little and their second
CFs were left on their own to do more.
A related finding that has major implications for planned change,
if it is consistently observed in future studies, has to do with the
placement of the second change facilitator. In this study the second
CF for the initiator and manager-style principals were staff members
in the school buildings. In each case the second CFs for the respond-
er-style principals were located in the district office. In hindsight
this makes sense. Initiator and manager-style principals strive to
have resources and personnel close at hand and engaged. Responder-
style principals with their more casual approach to change facilita-
tion do not actively support their staff in the second CF role. What
happened in the schools described here was direct involvement in
responder-led schools by concerned district office based facilitators.
Yet ironically, much of their intervention behavior was directed
toward the responder-style principals to get them to do the basic
interventions that were needed, rather than teachers. Their total
number of interventions is relatively low probably due to distance
from the school and other higher priority demands on their time.
In summary, an overall pattern to the quantity of interventions
made by principals, their second change facilitators, and for each
school were observed in the Principal Teacher Interaction Study.
There was a clear trend from relatively few interventions in the
responder-led schools to the highest frequency of interventions
occurring in the initiator-led schools. The discovery of the role of
the second change facilitator adds a new dimension to our under-
standing of the change process. The placement of the second CF and
their complementarity to what the principal does are real keys to
understanding the change facilitating team that can work in each
school.
The study findings indicated a clear relationship between the
change facilitating style of the principal and implementation success
(Huling et al. 1983 ). All the study schools had acceptable success in
implementing programs, but the degree of success was lowest in
responder-led schools and highest in initiator-led schools. Overall,
implementation success was correlated 0. 74 (p = 0.01) with the prin-
cipal's change facilitation style. The more principals functioned as
initiators, the more successful was the implementation that occurred.
All of these findings together illustrate how important the change
facilitator role can be. The findings provide descriptions of the types
of interventions principals and others can do that can make a differ-
ence. The next section of this article uses descriptions to bring to life
these different approaches to facilitating school change.
THREE IMAGES OF
IMPLEMENTATION
To better understand the characteristics and operational dynamics of

the three change facilitation styles, consider the following descrip-
tions of the three principals in the Atlantic district. These principals
were involved with implementation of a new math curriculum. The
descriptions combine qualitative and quantitative data from the PTI
Study. They are intended as brief images that can suggest some of
the flavor of the three styles in action. Keep in mind that the schools
of these principals were in the same district organization, had the
same levels of resource support, district inservice offerings, and the
like. The three schools were viewed by their community and by the
central office as being satisfactory in discharging their responsibilities
for students. There were no crisis situations, extreme personnel
dilemmas, or enduring problems in the illustration schools. The prin-
cipals, too, were viewed as doing a satisfactory job, and each had
been principal of their school for more than 10 years. These princi-
pals have been selected for illustrative purposes because they are
particularly clear examples of the three styles.
Quantitative data presented in the descriptions are referenced to
Tables I through 4, which give summary data on the incident-level
interventions of the three principals and their second CFs. Table I
contains the percentages of each kind of incident intervention: iso-
lated, simple, complex, chain, and repeated. Table 2 provides per-
centages of the targets for the interventions. The targets range from
students, teachers, school resource people, and building administra-
tors to system-level administrators and resource people and persons
beyond the system level. Table 3 presents categories of functions of
interventions by percentages. The functions are codings of the
purpose of interventions. Table 4 reports percentages of the interven-
tions in terms of the medium, the flow of the interventions, and the
location of the action.
>-l
::I:
:::0
tT1
tT1
~
-
>
C)
tT1
tn
~
::I:
TABLE 1 /Sublevels of Incident Interventions (in percentages) >
>-l
Principal As Source Second CF As Source "'':j
:::0
Sublevels Responder Tyler Manager Laurel Initiator Abbott Tyler's Laurel's Abbott's z
(j
Isolated 2 " '':j
-
Simple 79 73 53 10 66 79 >
Complex 6 23 31 10 19 6 ~
Chain 15 2 6 79 12 10 t:l
Repeated 0
2 8 3 2
Other 2
Total Number
(Raw Scores) 33 64 51 48 32 48
-..J
-..1
1:-..l
TABLE 2/Targets of Incident Interventions (in percentages)

Principal As Source Second CF as Source
Targets Responder Tyler Manager Laurel Initiator Abbott Tyler's Laurel's Abbott's
Students
An Individual Teacher 24 2 21 6 28 27
Subset of Teachers-as Individuals 12 2 12 77 9 17
Subset of Teachers-as Groups 4
Subset of Teachers-as Whole Subse 9 5 6 4 6 25 Vl
All Teachers-as Individuals 3 9 2 6 4 :I:
All Teachers-as Subgroups 3 :;>c
-
t""
All Teachers-as a Whole Group 30 23 18 2 6 8 trl
School Site Resource People 8 6 -<
Principal 3 6 2 6 6 2 :::
Assistant Principal 3 27 2 2 :I:
Innovation Facilitators 8 0
:;>c
District Level People 6 11 18 19 6 tl
Other 9 5 12 2 18 >
z
Total Number (raw score) 33 64 51 48 32 48 tl
C)
trl
ztrl
trl
:I:
>
t""
t""
( ')
---
o-j
::X:
:;:g
ttl
ttl
;:::
>
C)
ttl
til
TABLE 3/Functions of Incident Interventions (in percentages) ~

::X:
Principal as Source Second CF as Source >
o-j
Functions Responder Tyler Manager Laurel Initiator Abbott Tyler's Laurel's Abbott's '"C
~
1000. Developing Supportive z
Organizational Arrangements 61 56 49 8 69 38 n
'"C
--
2000. Training 3 6 8 9 2 >
t""'
til
3000. Consultation and Reinforcement 24 20 16 44 19 25 0
0
4000. Monitoring and Evaluating 6 22 24 40 3 36
5000. Other 6 2 6
Total Number (raw scores) 33 64 51 48 32 48
-.1
w
-.1
~
TABLE 4/Medium/Flow/Location of Incident Interventions (in percentages)

Principal As Source Second CF As Source
Medium Responder Tyler Manager Laurel Initiator Abbott Tyler's Laurel's Abbott's
Face-to-face 91 70 86 100 56 90
Written 6 19 4 19
Audio Visual
Telephone 3 11 8 25
Other 2
Flow Vl
One-Way 24 41 4 53 6
Interactive 76 59 92 100 47 90 :::0
-=
Other 4 4 I:""
tTl
.....::
Location
School 22 12 22 23 ~
School- Office 54 33 47 12 31 38
0
=
School- Classroom 12 3 16 35 12 35 :::0
School - Other 30 22 24 46 4 0
School - District 3 17 4 25 >
z
Beyond the School District 3 2 2 9 0
C)
Total Number (raw score) 33 64 51 48 32 48 tTl
ztTl
tTl
>
=
I:""
I:""
(")
---
The Responder: Lets It Happen
At Sunnyside School, Principal Johnson Tyler is a pleasant and gen-

erally amiable person who readily makes one feel welcome in his
school. He is friendly and takes time with visitors as if each person
were his first priority. He finds answers to outsiders' questions, most
often by asking his secretary or the assistant principal for the data
needed. A visitor might also learn from Tyler about fishing in the
area as well as the quail-shooting prospects. His two daughters might
also come into the conversation. Tyler is known as a patient listener
to parents, teachers and children and is a successful mediator be-

tween parents and teachers. In the cafeteria he speaks to pupils by
name. His strengths lie in being a peacemaker as well as a man who
can stand his ground under fire or in a crisis. However, he appears
to give little thought to anticipating crises in advance.
Principal Tyler believes in the top-down chain of command. It is
known in the school that he is the boss, but he is low key and un-
demanding unless his prerogatives are grossly transgressed or unless
the district administration mandates a certain course. When this
happens, he tells teachers what they are to do; otherwise, he lets
them teach as they think best. He considers that he has a strong
faculty: "They are professionals and do a fine job." He does.not
"push" teachers. He stresses citizenship above all and demands polite
behavior of children. He does not claim to be skilled in curriculum
areas and delegates to others the task of monitoring curriculum im-
plementation and helping teachers with their teaching. After delegat-
ing, he does not typically follow up what is happening. Interactions
with teachers most typically occur in his office rather than in class-
rooms.
He is quick to telephone area-level and central office resource
people to request information that he needs at the moment. In turn,
he gives them almost free rein in the school, with the trade-off that
they bring him up to date about what is happening in matters of
immediate need or interest to him. There is an openness in his rela-
tionships with the area and central office administrators and support
personnel. It is significant that the second CF for Sunnyside is an
area-level curriculum coordinator. Principal Tyler did not choose her
for his second CF; she chose him.
The distribution of incident interventions for Principal Tyler and
his second CF are presented in Table I. Note that in terms of the
total number of incident interventions, the second CF (n = 48) is
more active than Tyler (n = 33). Like the other principals, Tyler's
largest percentage of activities is the simple type. The variation by
style has to do with the purpose of the simple interventions each
makes. A simple incident that exemplifies Principal Tyler is asking
the second CF to talk with a teacher about how the teacher aides
can help in implementing the new program. The second CF, on the
contrary, tends to use more of the involved chain incidents, repeating
the same action with a number of teachers. An example of a chain

incident occurred when the second CF made her weekly visit to each
of the five instructional aides to monitor their teaching activities.
Tyler most frequently targets individual teachers (24% + 12% +
3%) such as Robert Jones, a new first-grade teacher (Table 2). All
teachers as a whole, such as the faculty in a meeting, account for an-
other large percentage (30%) of his targets. The second CF at Sunny-
side targets individual teachers within subsets (77%), such as particu-
lar grade-level teachers.
What is the purpose of Tyler's incident interventions? Table 3
shows that Tyler portrays the traditional "administrator" role- 61%

of the interventions are made to manage staff and seek materials,
information, and other resources. The second CF, meanwhile, is
taking responsibility for monitoring teachers' use ( 40%) and provid-
ing related feedback, consultation and problem solving ( 44%). Al-
though Tyler typically does not monitor what is occurring in the
classroom, he is available for consultation when teachers come to
him asking for assistance. An example is Rosalind Hunter's discussion
with him in his office about a pupil behavior problem that occurred
during math learning center time.
How does assistance to teachers occur? According to Table 4, and
as illustrated by the incident just described, interventions are deliv-
ered face to face by Tyler as opportunities present themselves. They
are done interactively in a give-and-take discussion and are likely
to take place in his office (54%). However, another large percentage
occur in the media center (30%), where teacher meetings are held.
For example, in a faculty meeting Tyler told the teachers that the
district's new program must be implemented in an acceptable way.
This prompted an extensive discussion in which Tyler responded to
questions and concerns by telling teachers not to be discouraged,
that he knew they were working at it and things would all work out
in time. Twelve percent of Tyler's interventions took place in class-
rooms.
The Manager: Helps It Happen
Wallace Laurel arrives at his school at seven a.m. each day, two hours
before teachers and children arrive. This early arrival allows him to
prepare for the day before interruptions begin and to get the day off
to a well-organized, clean start. Larch Grove School reflects its
principal's orderly approach. There are established procedures for
obtaining supplies and materials, for handling reports, and for re-
questing assistance. In short, it is a well-managed school. Teachers
like their school and refer to their principal as available, always re-
sponsive, and understanding. Principal Laurel provides or arranges
assistance for his teachers; they know they can count on him to take
care of their needs.
They also know that he will not unduly impose upon them. He is
concerned that their burden not be too heavy and works to protect
them against overload. For instance, in the data collection activities
of the PTI study, teachers were asked to respond to a I 0 to IS-
minute paper and pencil instrument three times during the school
year. Laurel provided time for teachers to do this by giving them
"his" weekly faculty meeting time rather than intruding upon
"their" time.
The school and principaling, in addition to two grandchildren, are
a major focus of widower Laurel's life. He gives abundantly of his
time and energy, which is reflected in the early start time at the
school and his service on numerous district-wide policy development
committees. His image among other principals and among the area
and district administrators with whom he works is that of a strong
but unassuming colleague who does not require an inequitable
amount of attention or air time. In short, within the school as well as
without, Principal Laurel sees that things get done without a lot of
"fuss and feathers." When asked to identify what he emphasized in
his leadership behavior, he cited "task, I'm afraid, over relationships."
His reply reveals his attention to task, but it also suggests his concern
about relationship with his faculty and his wish not to exclude it in
his leadership actions.
Laurel's second CF is the assistant principal of the school. In
working with his second CF, it is clear (Table I) that this manager
principal makes twice as many interventions (n = 64) as the second
CF (n = 32). When interventions are examined for type, simple inci-
dents account for nearly three-fourths, and the complex type, one-
fourth (complex incidents are a set of related simple incidents, and
are therefore longer and likely to be more interactive). The second
CF has a similar distribution of simple and complex incidents but
does proportionately more chains.
In Larch Grove School, the principal meets with the second CF
once a week at lunch to review all aspects of the school's activities
and agenda, including program implementation. At these meetings
new curriculum implementation concerns and problems are identi-
fied. Typically Principal Laurel invites brainstorming and solution
suggestions from the other facilitator. A response to the problem is
identified in the meeting and each person's responsibilities for carry-
ing out the solution are carefully detailed. Through this process, the
principal is satisfied that both he and the second CF understand who
will be doing what.
Principal Laurel continually interacts with the second CF and
monitors his work. The second CF was the focus of 27% of the
principal's interventions (Table 2). Many of these interventions are
for planning, and the principal takes the lead. Rather than always in-
tervening with teachers directly, Laurel appears to act regularly
through the second CF, nearly half of whose interventions are aimed
at individual teachers (28% + 9% + 6%). The teachers as a whole
group are another large intervention target of the principal. These

interventions include faculty meetings and sending a memo to all
teachers. Meanwhile, the principal and the second CF are targeting
persons at the area and district level to request supplies, materials,
and training assistance for teachers. Larch Grove School and its
administrators have had a long-term, excellent relationship with the
area-level curriculum people who provide teacher assistance.
A large proportion of the principal's and the second CF's interven-
tions are to gain material and to schedule training (Table 3). Here
the manager principal, in contrast to the responder, is assuming a
larger role in monitoring teacher use of the curriculum, in concert
with the consultation and feedback performed by the second CF.

Table 4 indicates that Principal Laurel and his second CF provide
more written interventions than were observed in the other schools.
Perhaps this procedure is used out of a desire to communicate ad-
ministrative information and other messages in a more "orderly"
manner. For some reason, Laurel's second CF is the only CF using
the telephone for intervening. Unlike the other two principals, the
manager principal and his second CF have a nearly equal distribution
of one-way and interactive interventions. The higher frequency of
written communications contribute to the higher frequency of one-
way interventions.
Principal Laurel seldom intervenes in classrooms (only 3%, Table
4 ). The principal and his second CF use a variety of locations, but
most interventions occur in the office. They did intervene more at
the district level (outside the school, but within the district) than
the other principals, often telephoning to arrange, requisition, and
schedule.
Unlike most other principals in the study, Wallace Laurel ex-
amined the teacher data collected by the researchers. He noted that
most teachers did not use one major set of materials. In response, he
and his facilitator planned for and implemented two major strategies
extending over the school year. Their game plan of strategies,
tactics, and incidents to assist the teachers in adopting the materials
into classroom practice was quite effective (Huling, Hall, and Hard
1982). In this instance Principal Laurel responded to the "gap" in
teachers' use of the materials with a great deal of energy and per-
sistence- a more typical characteristic of initiator principals. An-
other example of initiator-style behavior exhibited by Laurel was his
concern about having sufficient "hands-on manipulative" activities
and experiences for introducing new program concepts to the first
graders. He directed the second CF to develop the needed activities
in collaboration with the area-level curriculum consultant, and then
he carefully monitored this assignment to its completion.
The Initiator: Makes It Happen

Letitia Abbott opened Clear Lake School and has been its principal
for eleven years. She is well established in the school and is a highly
respected principal within the district. She has very good relation-
ships with the central office and is secure and confident in her posi-
tion. Some would say that she is a member of the "good ole boy
network," in touch with the downtown decision makers.
It is clear that her first sense of responsibility and priority is for
the quality of schooling offered to youngsters and that her second
obligation is to teachers. Abbott is intensely businesslike in her rela-
tions with everyone in the school, even with teachers she regards
highly. They all perceive Principal Abbott as having an "all business"
demeanor.
The principal's expectations are made clear to all- expectations
for herself, for teachers, and for students. The teachers tend to be
strong, independent people and one person suggested that the prin-
cipal deliberately selected this type of teacher. This is not a "warm
fuzzy" school. The principal establishes expectations and delegates
responsibilities to others. Her stand on professional issues is stated
directly. She shares little with the faculty about herself as a person,
except for some visible signs in her office indicating that she is a
bicycle racer and trains for this sport year round. Over time one
learns by making inquiries that Abbott has a husband but no chil-
dren. This information is not volunteered.
Woven through Abbott's conversations with visitors and faculty
are frequent comments about the school's programs for boys and
girls, what's beneficial for students, and how students will gain. She
emphasizes student outcomes and how to increase or improve them.
Her consistent and total attention is on instruction, with no distrac-
tive discussion about why effective instruction can't happen because
of the "changing community," "declining resources," or other in-
fluences. In Clear Lake School, researchers never saw a child or
parent in disciplinary action with the principal or other administra-
tors. It must have been there, but it was not an obvious activity.
In short, Principal Abbott runs an efficient school with consistent
emphasis on instruction and benefits to students. In the quest for
student learning and achievement, strong personal relationships,
positive or negative, are of secondary importance to this principal.
Principal Abbott's second CF is the assistant principal. The prin-
cipal and second CF spend a great deal of time with instructional
affairs. Like the principal, the second CF does not stimulate social
interaction with teachers. She is often seen discussing curriculum
with teachers in the hallways. Abbott has set out definite responsi-
bilities for the assistant principal. The principal is good at delegation,
providing structure to the responsibilities and then accepting the
consequences. Each of the administrators knows the domain for
which she is responsible.
For example, when Principal Abbott became aware that teachers
were experiencing problems with organizing and managing the new
curriculum in their classrooms, she knew they needed more assist-
ance in order to implement the new program smoothly. It was obvi-
ous to Abbott that teachers who are struggling to get the curriculum
in place cannot exercise as much instructional effectiveness. Abbott

selected a classroom teacher, removed him from the classroom, re-
distributed his students among the other teachers at that grade level,
and made him the in-house curriculum implementation facilitator.
After delegating this role, Abbott, in a carefully structured way,
made clear her expectations about how he should operate.
Unlike the facilitators in the manager's school, Clear Lake School
facilitators do not meet regularly. Occasionally Abbott monitors the
work of the teacher facilitator, and sometimes she uses the second
CF to find out how the teacher facilitator is doing. Just as frequently
Abbott monitors the both of them by asking teachers how the im-
plementation effort is going. If teachers report that "good things are
happening," she considers the facilitator to be successful.
In Clear Lake School, the initiator principal's incident interven-
tions (n = 51) are closely matched to those of the second CF (n =
48). There is a balance; both facilitators are assuming responsibility
for working with teachers. For this principal, there is also more of a
balance between simple (53%) and complex (31 %) incidents. A
typical simple incident was Abbott's commenting briefly to a teacher
that it would be good to start the instructional period with ten
minutes of drill. A complex incident, a set of related simple inci-
dents, is exemplified by a meeting Abbott had with all the teachers
to discuss instructional issues such as record keeping and use of
materials. The second CF's largest percentage of incidents is of the
simple type (79%), many of which are variations of popping into a
teacher's classroom to see what is going on and to offer a word of
support or advice.
Principal Abbott targets individual teachers (21% + 12% + 2%) for
a third of her interventions. All teachers as a whole account for 18
percent of the targets. The district-level people such as curriculum
coordinators who are assigned to Clear Lake School receive a like
amount of the principal's attention and interaction (18%). Abbott's
second CF also works with individual teachers (2 7% + 17% + 4% ), as
already noted. This second CF showed considerably more activity
than the other second CFs with groups of teachers (25%) such as
grade-level groupings of teachers. It is the second CF's custom to ask
the grade-level chairperson to convene the teachers at that grade level
for discussion of an issue. At these meetings, the second CF reports
what she has spotted while popping in on classrooms. As in the
manager school, the principal and the second CF at Clear Lake
School make a noticeable number of interventions targeted at
district-level resource people and decision makers for planning and
scheduling purposes.
Again, the initiator principal and the second CF are balanced in
their performance of functions (Table 3). The principal does some-
what more in developing arrangements and the second CF does more
in consultation/reinforcement and monitoring/evaluation, but over-
all, both are equally involved in each function.
Principal Abbott and her second CF have a strong preference for

face-to-face and interactive interventions (Table 4). Like the other
principals, a major portion of Abbott's interventions occur in the
office. However, she has a slight edge on classroom-located interven-
tions ( 16%). The second CF performs a third of her interventions in
the classroom. In this school, all except one intervention occurred
within the school, quite unlike the other two schools. This school
appears to look within itself to solve its problems and to allocate its
own resources. Though there is no real outreach of efforts to the
community, there is a school/community advisory board that makes
decisions about setting priorities and spending discretionary funds.

The principal has given the group this privilege and she sticks by their
decisions, whatever they may be.
She also follows district decisions. Negative comments about pro-
grams, policies, or district mandates are not heard from Abbott. In
fact, it is not characteristic to hear anything negative from her.
Rather than complaining, she carefully "corrects" policies that are
not useful to her school. An illustration of this is her response to a
district policy that pupils who have not achieved the curriculum ob-
jectives of a prior grade level must be retaught. There was much
concern and discussion in the district schools about this policy. At
Clear Lake School, Abbott recognized the issue, collected and
analyzed classroom data, and determined what changes were needed
to adapt the policy to the needs of her school. The principal met
with the district policy people, presented her data-based case, and
gained approval to change the policy for Clear Lake School.
The Images: Contrasts
These descriptions of the three Atlantic district schools summarize

many of the distinguishing patterns observed in all study schools.
They illustrate characteristic intervention patterns of the three
change facilitation styles and the relationship to the Second CF.
Other similarities and differences are summarized next.
Number and type of Interventions
The total number of incidents made by the principals and second

CFs (Table l) increased from the responder-led school (Principal
Tyler 33 + second CF 48 = 81) to the manager-led school (Principal
Laurel 64 + second CF 32 = 96) to the initiator-led school (Principal
Abbott 51 + second CF 48 = 99). The responder principal made 50%
fewer interventions than his second CF. The manager principal made
twice as many interventions as his second CF. The distribution of
interventions between the initiator principal and her second CF was
nearly equal.
In looking at the complexity of the incidents, the percentage of

simple incidents decreased from responder to manager to initiator
principals. The number of "richer" interventions (complex + chain
+ repeated) increased from responder (6% complex + IS% chain) to
manager (23% complex + 2% chain + 2% repeated) to initiator prin-
cipal (31% complex+ 6% chain + 8% repeated).
Targets
In terms of targets (Table 2), teachers as a whole were targeted in
decreasing percentages from the responder to manager to initiator

principal. The initiator and the responder targeted individual teachers
in approximately the same proportion, while the manager did not
work directly with individuals but operated through his second CF
by targeting interventions on him. Unlike the other two schools,
there were fewer interventions targeted on district-level people by
the responder principal and his second CF.
Functions
The proportion of interventions to develop arrangements decreased
in the order of responder to manager to initiator (Table 3). The same
decrease was found in the consultation/reinforcement function. The
proportion of monitoring/evaluating interventions increased from
responder to manager to initiator data.
Medium/flow/location
The manager used a higher percentage of written and telephone in-
terventions, the most notable difference in use of medium (Table 4).
The manager also had a more even distribution of one-way and in-
teractive flow, whereas both the initiator and the responder used
interactive flow more often. The responder made a higher percentage
of interventions in the office than the initiator, and the initiator a
higher percentage than the manager. The initiator intervened in class-
rooms more, followed by the responder and the manager, respective-
ly. Except for one incident outside the school system setting, the
initiator-school incidents all occurred within the school.
Location of the Second CF

In the initiator's and the manager's schools, the second CFs were
chosen by the principals from the human resource pool at the school.
This pattern was also found in the other study schools. In all re-
sponder-led study schools, the second CF came from outside the
school, from the area level or central office. If the second CF's post
was not filled, or if the role didn't exist, initiators and managers
selected a person or restructured staff, appointed someone to the
role, and provided grooming if needed. In responder schools, the role

was created and filled by a force outside the school.
WHAT PRINCIPALS DO
We have known for some decades that simply providing new curricu-
lum to teachers is not sufficient. Though involving teachers intimate-
ly and thoroughly in curriculum development is a useful strategy for
launching implementation, we now realize that more is needed to
support and sustain teachers' efforts to change instructional prac-

tice.
As the profession and the public have turned to principals to be
accountable for better schools, researchers have been studying the
principal's role. While much has been learned, the findings have typi-
cally identified only the general characteristics of effective principals.
Because the PTI Study was designed to identify the specifics of day-
to-day principal facilitation of change efforts, the study's findings
have advanced the knowledge base about the role of the principal
and others in assisting teachers in curriculum implementation.
For example, the study shed light on the various targets of princi-
pals' actions and the distribution of principal interventions among
individual teachers, groups of teachers, and total staff. It also showed
the interventions principals make with the administrators, resource
persons, and facilitators at the school and the district level. The
study indicated that students, parents, and persons outside the school
district system are infrequent intervention targets.
The study provided specific information about how principals
deliver their interventions (face to face, writing, telephone, or audio-
visual media) and how interactive they are with targets of interven-
tions- in the principal's office, in classrooms, in other areas of the
school, and in various other locations within the school district, and
it provided information on the frequency with which various loca-
tions are used.
We learned again, as we knew in the past, that principals play an
important role in providing materials, instructional resources, space,
personnel, scheduling, and other logistical and organizational arrange-
ments necessary to initiate and sustain school improvement. The PTI
Study showed that in order to provide smoothly organized support,
effective principals engage in many different actions, including on-
going planning. The formulation of new policies and the adaptation
of existing ones, staffing and restructuring of roles, and scheduling
are done, as is the seeking of materials, information, space, and other
needed resources.
The study made clear the attention-though not high in frequency
counts- that effective principals give to staff development and in-
service training to support teachers in the implementation process.
Study principals worked with their faculties to teach them new
knowledge and skills, review what had been previously taught, and
clarify misunderstandings. For example, one principal provided in-
service training sessions for teachers at the weekly faculty meeting,
directing the sessions himself. The sessions included the use of video
clips and structured discussion. Although some principals did not
supply the training themselves, they provided training from other
sources. For example, one principal surveyed teacher needs, made
many phone calls, and negotiated with the regional education service
center to provide a hands-on training workshop in the use of new
curriculum materials.
The study showed how principals monitor change efforts by ask-
ing probing questions, conferring with teachers, dropping in to class-

rooms, collecting data, and analyzing it. Frequent one-on-one casual
interviews with teachers in the hallways were the basis for subse-
quent consultation and coaching activities with teachers. In these
activities, the principals promote and encourage the use of new
curriculum; they reinforce and give positive support to teachers for
their successes; they solve problems with teachers; and they share
information by memos, newsletters, personal communications, and
by other means.
A new and significant finding of the study is that principals typi-
cally use other persons to officially assist them in implementation.
The study's insights about the identity of these second change facili-
tators, their functions, and their relationships to principals provide
useful information for making curriculum implementation more
effective in the future.
STUDY IMPLICATIONS
The findings of the Principal Teacher Interaction Study have certain

implications for policy, research and practice. If principals show
critical differences in the way they carry out their role, then research
studies that offer normative descriptions of principal behaviors have
limited value, as do school improvement policies and staff develop-
ment programs aimed at the "average" principal. Research, policy
and practice must take style differences into account.
Further Research
The use of the Intervention Taxonomy and Anatomy of Interven-

tions permits the description of change facilitator actions in system-
atic ways. Future research on the change process in schools may
compare and contrast interventions across several intervention stud-
ies in order to characterize change efforts in terms of their predom-
inant kinds of interventions, the styles of facilitators, and to assess
the relationships of major kinds of interventions to implementation
success.
Clearly, making interventions is important, but how much inter-

vening is sufficient? When and where should interventions be made?
And what kinds of interventions are most facilitative for particular
Stages of Concern, Levels of Use, and Innovation Configurations?
These are fruitful topics for further research.
Much recent literature and consultant testimony has expressed the
theory that leaders need to change their style depending on the par-
ticular conditions at a given point in time. Our impression is that
leaders are not as adaptive in their behavioral patterns as these theo-
ries presuppose. Just how changeable change facilitators are in their
style is a subject that needs further research and analysis.
Research is needed to determine the relationships between the

change facilitation of principals and their specific Stages of Concern
about facilitating school improvement. It may be that style varies
with the Stage of Concern related to facilitating implementation.
Another area of research interest is the relationship between a
principal's change facilitation style and the context within which he
or she is working. Does context influence the style that is exhibited?
Are particular styles better suited to certain contexts? Do particular
styles reshape the context? Our impression is that contextual influ-
ences vary depending on the principal's style. Within the same dis-
trict, we have observed that the same context is interpreted and used
differently by principals with different styles.
Finally, future research should study what happens to school im-
provement efforts when study principals and their second CFs are
brought early into the planning and training process. If they receive
some common and some specialized training and clarification of their
mutually supportive roles, we would hypothesize that facilitation
and implementation success would be greatly enhanced.
Policy Issues
In view of the large number of incident interventions required to

facilitate change, policy makers need to acknowledge that the inter-
vention capacity of a user system is finite. Change facilitators and
others can only do so much. Multiple concurrent adoptions are likely
to exhaust the time and energy limits of individuals and user systems.
A useful research topic would be the time dimension of interven-
tions. In a world of 24-hour days, what are the limits on number and
type of interventions.
But more importantly for policy makers, is recognition that facili-
tating change takes time and that principals need specialized skills
to accomplish the job. It also is important to recognize in policy
development that "principals don't do it alone." The second change
facilitator role is a crucial counter role and the two together make up
the nucleus of the change facilitator team.
As systems for evaluating principals are established they should
take into account the overall design that a principal uses to get the
job done, rather than focusing singularly on what an individual prin-

cipal can and cannot do. It is the work of the team and the leader-
ship provided the team that makes the difference.
Applications
In addition to the many findings of the PTI Study, a most useful
aspect of the study may well be the development of the methodol-
ogy for analyzing interventions. The Intervention Taxonomy and
Anatomy of Interventions can be used not only for research but also
for training change facilitators and for planning and evaluating

change efforts.
Policy makers can use the Intervention Taxonomy for planning
and monitoring new initiatives. By viewing the implementation of
policy decisions as a process rather than as a discrete event, they can
develop intervention game plans with appropriate game plan compo-
nents, strategies, and perhaps tactics. Policy makers can gain insights
into the implications of their decisions if they consider the interven-
tions that will be required at the lower levels of the taxonomy. By
using the Anatomy and becoming informed about which sources are
most likely to focus interventions on which targets in what ways,
they can make use of the most influential sources at different points
during the change process. When planning district-wide innovations,
they can adapt game plans to different schools and to different
change facilitating styles of the principal and the second CFs.
Change facilitators can use the Anatomy to assist in planning and
evaluating change efforts and to analyze their own behavior. By
understanding the characteristics of interventions, they can better
tailor their interventions to particular needs and conditions. They
can monitor how they spend their time, for what purpose, and with
whom. They can identify gaps in their attention to targets and
functions and plan the most effective use of their limited time and
resources.
When planning school improvement efforts, policy makers and
principals should consider the identification, training, placement, and
role of the second CF. The study suggests that the second CF role
emerges out of necessity at the school level. The second CF tends to
be a staff person rather than a line administrator who supports,
coaches, and monitors the day-to-day responses of teachers. These
types of interventions are needed to complement the interventions
made by principals. Presently, the second CF role carries little formal
recognition and training, although it clearly fits the upper rungs of
the career-ladder concept. School improvement efforts can be en-
hanced by giving more attention and resources to developing this
important role.
In summary, the change facilitating style of the principal and the
role of the second change facilitator can be useful concepts for guid-
ing policy, practice, and research. That principals are different one
from the other, and that they work with others is quite obvious. The
details of these differences and their implication for successful school
improvement are beginning to be identified. The PTI study described
here contributes to increased understanding of how the change proc-
ess works and what can be done on a day-to-day basis to facilitate
the implementation of new curriculum more successfully.
REFERENCES
Corbett, H. D. "Principals' contributions to maintaining change." Phi Delta

Kappan 63, no. 3 (198 2): 190-192.
Cotton, K. and Savard, W. G. The principal as instructional leader. Portland, OR:
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1980.
Fege, A. "Recovering from the cult of innovation: Reflections on change and
improvement." School Administrator 37, no. 6 (1980).
Fullan, M. The meaning of educational change, New York: Teachers College
Press, Columbia University, 1982.
Goldstein, M. L. and Rutherford, W. L. Methodologies for documenting inter-
ventions: Strengths of a hybrid multi-informant approach (R&D Rep. No.
3136). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York, 1982.
Hall, G. E., George, A. A., and Rutherford, W. L. Measuring Stages of Concern
about the innovation: A manual for the use of the SoC Questionnaire (R&D
Rep. No. 3032). Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Edu-
cation, The University of Texas, 1979.
Hall, G. E. and Hord, S. M. "Analyzing what change facilitators do: The Inter-
vention Taxonomy." Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 5, no. 3
(1984): 275-307.
Hall, G. E., Hord, S.M., Huling, L. L., Rutherford, W. L., and Stiegelbauer, S.M.
Leadership variables associated with successful school improvement (R&D
Rep No. 3164). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Edu-
cational Research Association, Montreal, 1983.
Hall, G. E., Hord, S. M., and Griffin, T. H. Implementation at the school build-
ing level: The development and analysis of nine mini-case studies (R&D Rep.
No. 3098). Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education,
The University of Texas, 1980.
Hall, G. E. and Loucks, S. F. "Program Definition and Adaptation: Implications
for Inservice." Journal of Research and Development in Education 14, no. 2
(1981): 46-58.
Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., and Newlove, B. W. "Levels of use
of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption." The
Journal of Teacher Education 29, no. 1 (1975): 52-56.
Hall, G. E. and Rutherford, W. L. "Concerns of teachers about implementing
team teaching." Educational Leadership 34, no. 3 (1976): 227-233.
Hall, G. E. and Rutherford, W. L. Three change facilitator styles: How principals
affect improvement efforts (R&D Rep. No. 3155). Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal,
1983.
Hall, G. E., Rutherford, W. L., and Griffin, T. H. Three change facilitator styles:
Some indicators and a proposed framework (R&D Rep. No. 3134). Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
tion, New York, 1982.
Hall, G. E., Rutherford, W. L., Hord, S. M., and Huling, L. L. "Effects of three
principal styles on school improvement." Educational Leadership 41, no. 5
(1984): 22-29.
Hall, G. E., Zigarmi, P., and Hord, S.M. A taxonomy of intervention: The proto-
type and initial testing (R&D Rep. No. 3073). Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,
CA, 1979.
Hord, S. M. Context and research plan for analysis of interventions in a two-year
study of innovation implementation (R&D Rep. No. 3075). Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA, 1979.
Hord, S. M. Analyzing administrator intervention behaviors (R&D Rep. No.
3127). Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education,

The University of Texas, 1981.
Hord, S. M. and Goldstein, M. L. What does the principal do to facilitate change:
Their interventions (R&D Rep. No. 3132). Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, 1982.
Hord, S. M. and Hall, G. E. Procedures for quantitative analysis of change facili-
tator interventions (R&D Rep. No. 3138). Austin: Research and Develop-
ment Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas, 1982.
Hord, S. M., Hall, G. E., and Zigarmi, P. Anatomy of incident and tactic inter-
ventions: Dimensions, design (R&D Rep. No. 3094). Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston,
MA, 1980.
Hord, S. M., Huling, L. L., and Stiegelbauer, S. M. An analysis of interventions in
school improvement efforts (R&D Rep. No. 3156). Paper presented at the an-
nual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal,
1983.
Hord, S. M., Stiegelbauer, S.M., and Hall, G. E. "How principals work with oth-
er CFs." Education and Urban Society 17, no. l (1984): 89-109.
Huling, L., Hall, G., and Hord, S. Effects of principal interventions on teachers
during the change process (R&D Rep. No. 3133). Paper presented at the an-
nual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York,
1982.
Huling, L. L., Hall, G. E., Hord, S.M., and Rutherford W. L. A multi-dimension-
al approach for assessing implementation success (R&D Rep. No. 3157).
Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal,
1983.
Leithwood, K. A., Ross, J., Montgomery, D., and Maynes, F. An empirical inves-
tigation of teacher's curriculum decision-making processes and strategies used
by curriculum decision managers to influence such decision making. Toronto:
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1978.
Leithwood, K. A. and Montgomery, D. "The role of the elementary school prin-
cipal in program improvement: A review." Review of Educational Research
52, no. 3 (1982): 309-339.
Lipham, J. M. Effective principal, effective school. Reston VA: National Associ-
ation of Elementary School Principals, 1981.
Little, J. School success and staff development in urban segregated schools.
Boulder, CO: Center for Action Research, 1981.
Loucks, S. F., Newlove, B. W., and Hall, G. E. Measuring Levels of Use of the
innovation: A manual for trainers, interviewers, and raters (R&D Rep. No.
30 13). Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education,
The University of Texas at Austin, 1976.
Morris, V. C., Crowson, R. L., Hurwitz, E., Jr., and Porter-Gehrie, C. The urban
principal: Discretionary decision-making in a large educational setting (Re-
port of a research project funded by the National Institute of Education).
Chicago: College of Education, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, 1981.
Persell, C. H. and Cookson Jr., P. W. "The effective principal in action." The

effective principal: A research summary, Reston, VA: National Association of
Secondary School Principals, 1982, pp. 22-29.
Reinhard, D. L., Arends, R. A., Kutz, W., Lovell, K., and Wyant, S. Great expec-
tations: The principal's role and inservice needs in supporting change projects.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Boston, MA, 1980.
Rutherford, W. L. The intervention and plans principals make when facilitating
change (R&D Rep. No. 3129). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Southwest Educational Research association, Dallas, 1981.

Rutherford, W. L., Hord, S. M., Ruling, L. L., and Hall, G. E. Change facilita-
tors: In search of understanding their role (R&D Rep. No. 3159). Austin:
Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of
Texas, 1983.
Rutter, M. Ouston, J., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., and Smith, A. Fifteen thou-
sand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1979.
Venezky, R. and Winfield, L. Schools that succeed beyond expectations in
teaching reading. Newark, NJ: University of Delaware, 1979.
Zigarmi, P. and Goldstein, M. A mapping technique for the analysis of ethno-
graphic data and its contribution to the development of a theory of innova-
tion intervention (R&D Rep. No. 3083). Austin: Research and Development
Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas at Austin, 1979.

Three Images: What Principals Do in Curriculum Implementation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Three Images: What Principals Do in Curriculum Implementation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Curriculum Inquiry

ISSN: 0362-6784 (Print) 1467-873X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcui20

Three Images: What Principals Do in Curriculum

Shirley M. Hord & Gene E. Hall

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1987.11075277

Published online: 15 Dec 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

The Principal Teacher Interaction (PTI) Study is an analysis of what principals

Since the 1950s, school improvement has become a matter of in-

Earlier RDCTE studies demonstrated the importance of understand-

tiona! characteristics or Innovation Configurations. These conceptual

describe and classify interventions in the school setting (Hall and

as effective change facilitators (Pitner 1982). The unspoken assump-

tions of the responder, manager, and initiator styles of change

THE PRINCIPAL TEACHER INTERACTION STUDY

do principals do as change facilitators? (2) What is the relationship

The Study Sites

sequence of objectives as their "new" program. As a result, they

The Study Principals

RDCTE researchers developed rudimentary descriptions of three par-

Data Collection and Analysis

Principals were individually trained to identify interventions they

Data were also collected on other variables. To assess the impact

Levels of Use is assessed through a focused interview with a pre-

their use through formal or informal assessment of student needs.

Two analytical frameworks, the Taxonomy of Interventions (Hall

be a one-of-a-kind happening or may aggregate with other incidents

Sublevels further define incidents according to the degree of com-

The Anatomy of Interventions is a framework for analyzing the

Sublevel: Degree of complexity of the action

Within each dimension, categories or kinds specify possible varia-

for integrating all revisions of coding rules, answering staff questions

the task, agree on the description of each identified intervention, and

detailed picture of the way in which one intervention led to another.

umn frequencies and proportions were calculated. A next step was

style using an interval scale. Researchers familiar with each principal

DESCRIPTION OF THE THREE STYLES

Style is defined as the gestalt of knowledge, concerns, behaviors, and

Although there is variation within the groups of responders, mana-

PRINCIPALS AND THEIR SECOND

A striking feature of the study was the number of incident interven-

cessful facilitation of change. Over and over, teachers told researchers

alone. All the study principals were assisted by a second CF who

tions was 0.61 (p = 0.04), which indicates a pattern to the relation-

of opportunity to intervene that is made available by the principal

these different approaches to facilitating school change.

To better understand the characteristics and operational dynamics of

TABLE 2/Targets of Incident Interventions (in percentages)

TABLE 3/Functions of Incident Interventions (in percentages) ~

TABLE 4/Medium/Flow/Location of Incident Interventions (in percentages)

The Responder: Lets It Happen

At Sunnyside School, Principal Johnson Tyler is a pleasant and gen-

to parents, teachers and children and is a successful mediator be-

the same action with a number of teachers. An example of a chain

shows that Tyler portrays the traditional "administrator" role- 61%

The Manager: Helps It Happen

group are another large intervention target of the principal. These

with the consultation and feedback performed by the second CF.

The Initiator: Makes It Happen

in place cannot exercise as much instructional effectiveness. Abbott