Problem and Purpose
The American K-12 school principal is responsible for providing a learning environment that is physically and emotionally safe. An abrasive teacher who displays bullying behaviors towards students is a threat to that environment, impeding student academic progress and decreasing student perceptions of safety. Principals intervene, with risk to themselves.
This study sought to understand principal intervention by: (a) estimating the prevalence of abrasive teachers, (b) asking how principals identify abrasive teachers, (c) classifying situational elements that enhance or inhibit the principal's motivation to intervene, (d) exploring the interventions principals used, (e) examining the effects those interventions had on the schools, and (f) searching for patterns in interventions that might be helpful to theorists and practitioners.
A fully integrated, mixed-methods design was used in collecting and interpreting data from 515 surveys and 21 semi-structured, in-depth interviews. The volunteer sample was composed of K-12 principals from California public and private schools. Findings were based on the perceptions of the principals. Principal perception was used due to the principal's legal and moral responsibility for the school, its students, and its teachers, and due to his/her access to all school stakeholders.
The study found that four out of five (80.1%) of the schools represented in the study currently have—or in the past 3 years have had—an average of 2.9 abrasive teachers. The teachers were disproportionately distributed across grade levels, subject areas, sex of the teachers, years of teaching experience, and race.
The study identified five types of teacher maltreatment of students: verbal, professional, physical, non-verbal, and social. The study found that student symptoms could be grouped under the headings of emotional states, psychosomatic manifestations, fight responses, flight responses, and asking for help. The study also categorized the various theories principals hold to explain why a teacher would use abrasive behaviors.
Nearly half of the reported interventions resulted in improved teacher performance as perceived by the principal. Nearly a quarter resulted in the teacher leaving the classroom, and a little more than a quarter resulted in no change or in the worsening of the situation. Local teacher unions sometimes worked cooperatively with the principal who was striving for the professional improvement or removal of a teacher. More often, unions impeded the principal's role of safeguarding the learning environment for each student. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, additional textual analyses were conducted, and 14 additional hypotheses and 18 sub-hypotheses were tested.
Conclusions and Recommendations
From the findings it was concluded: (a) abrasive teachers were present in a large majority of schools, (b) anxious principals were less likely to use interventions that required action with tangible outcomes, (c) schools need a systemic approach to dealing with aggression on all levels within the school community, and (d) principals and unions should develop ways to maintain teacher protections without sabotaging student learning.
Implications for practice include six recommendations for school stakeholders, three themes that should be included in professional development for principals, and 12 pieces of advice that veteran principals wished to give to rookie principals. The study ends with six specific recommendations for further research.
|Commitee:||Ledesma, Janet, Newman, Isadore, Sheppard, Bradley|
|School Location:||United States -- Michigan|
|Source:||DAI-A 75/10(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Educational leadership, Education Policy, School administration|
|Keywords:||Abrasive teacher, Bully, Bullying prevalence, Principal intervention|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be