School management innovation and principal support systems: toward the agenda for Croatian school reform

Figures & data

Table 1. Theoretical model of contemporary (constructivist) versus traditional (non-constructivist) principal practices.

Innovative practices of school principals		Traditional and administrative practices of school principals
Fundraising and financing (in addition to traditional sources)	‘Market research’ in local community	Reporting on school activities to authorities	Correspondence & administrative tasks
Project management	Public relations with school stakeholders	Reporting on school finances to authorities	Controlling of everyday activities
Institutional and project evaluations	Public relations, related to school projects	Scheduling tasks	Controlling of other activities
Co-operation with the economy	Media relations	Contacts with the Ministry of science & education, other state institutions, local administration
Planning future activities and projects		Involvement into accounting

Source: Educational experts’ evaluation.

Table 2. Managerial practices in Croatian schools.

Contemporary practices	Score	Traditional practices	Score
Fundraising and financing (in addition to traditional sources)	3.74	Reporting on school activities to authorities	3.40
Project management	3.30	Reporting on school finances to authorities	3.20
Institutional and project evaluations	3.39	Scheduling tasks	3.74
Co-operation with the economy	3.12	Contacts with the Ministry of science & education, other state institutions, local administration	3.67
Planning future activities and projects	3.73	Involvement into accounting	2.76
‘Market research’ in local community	3.15	Correspondence & administrative tasks	3.96
Public relations with school stakeholders	3.86	Controlling of everyday activities	4.42
Public relations, related to school projects	3.55	Controlling of other activities	4.27
Media relations	3.37

Source: Research results.

Table 3. Managerial support tools/systems and their usage.

Support tool/approach	Score	Support tool/approach	Score
Receiving information from the non-profit sector	2.67	Organised, in-house training	2.98
Receiving information from ‘official channels’ (Ministry, educational agencies, etc.)	3.12	Training on educational topics (organised for general public)	2.83
Receiving information from educational organisations & academic sector	2.80	Training on educational management topics (organised for general public)	2.61
Receiving advice from individual educational experts	2.71	Workshops on educational topics	2.53
Receiving advice from individual experts, specialised in educational management	2.56	Workshops on educational management topics	2.34

Source: Research results.

Table 4. Factor analysis of principal practices: rotated components matrix (Varimax method).

	Factor 1 (project management)	Factor 2 (fundraising)	Factor 3 (marketing)	Factor 4 (‘micro’ mgmt.)	Factor 5 (administration)
Fundraising and financing (in addition to traditional sources)		0.713
Reporting on school activities to authorities	0.834
Reporting on school finances to authorities	0.765
Project management	0.830
Institutional and project evaluations	0.819
Scheduling tasks	0.620
Co-operation with the economy		0.724
Planning future activities and projects	0.523
Contacts with the Ministry of science & education, other state institutions, local administration		0.755
Involvement into accounting					0.833
Correspondence & administrative tasks					0.724
Controlling of everyday activities				0.894
Controlling of other activities				0.886
‘Market research’ in local community		0.493			0.426
Public relations with school stakeholders			0.833
Public relations, related to school projects			0.796
Media relations			0.732

Source: Research results.

Table 5. Factor analysis of principal support tools/systems usage: Rotated components matrix (Varimax method).

	Factor 1 (Training & workshops)	Factor 2 (Consulting)	Factor 3 (Receiving information)
Receiving information from the non-profit sector			0.632
Receiving information from ‘official channels’ (Ministry, educational agencies, etc.)			0.914
Receiving information from educational organisations & academic sector		0.406	0.676
Receiving advice from individual educational experts		0.874
Receiving advice from individual experts, specialised in educational management		0.831
Organised, in-house training	0.759
Training on educational topics (organised for general public)	0.837
Training on educational management topics (organised for general public)	0.816
Workshops on educational topics	0.722
Workshops on educational management topics	0.803

Source: Research results.

Table 6. Correlation between principal practices and support tools/systems usage (factor scores).

		Workshops & lectures	Consulting	Receiving information
Project management	Pearson Correlation	0.082	0.304^**	0.198^*
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.318	0.000	0.016
Fundraising	Pearson Correlation	0.194^*	0.109	0.209^*
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.018	0.186	0.010
Marketing	Pearson Correlation	0.140	0.064	0.207^*
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.088	0.436	0.011
‘Micro’ management	Pearson Correlation	-0.008	-0.006	0.153
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.918	0.946	0.062
Administrative activities	Pearson Correlation	0.103	0.137	0.053
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.211	0.096	0.523

Source: Research results.

^* significant at 5% level

^** significant at 1% level.

Table 7. Analysis of variance for principal activities (factor scores) among clusters.

		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Project management	Between groups	52.207	4	13.052	19.421	0.000
	Within groups	98.793	147	0.672
	Total	151.000	151
Fundraising	Between groups	19.807	4	4.952	5.548	0.000
	Within groups	131.193	147	0.892
	Total	151.000	151
Marketing	Between groups	67.059	4	16.765	29.359	0.000
	Within groups	83.941	147	0.571
	Total	151.000	151
‘Micro’ management	Between groups	60.627	4	15.157	24.654	0.000
	Within groups	90.373	147	0.615
	Total	151.000	151
Administrative activities	Between groups	73.536	4	18.384	34.887	0.000
	Within groups	77.464	147	0.527
	Total	151.000	151

Source: Research results.

Table

	Project management	Fundraising	Marketing	"Micro-managing"	Administration
1	0.600	-0.221	0.437	-0.163	0.586
2	0.300	0.500	0.079	0.986	-0.223
3	-0.186	-0.507	-1.399	0.054	-0.055
4	-0.239	-0.039	0.355	-0.880	-1.259
5	-1.252	0.276	0.366	-0.411	0.894

Figure 1. Principal activities’ profiles. Source: Author’s calculation.

Note: Cluster 1 – Project- and marketing-oriented, still fulfil traditional obligations, good delegation skills. Cluster 2 – ‘Micro – managers’, ‘look over your shoulder’, with an average orientation on all other practices. Cluster 3 – Only minimum of activities. Cluster 4 – Do-little, emphasis on ‘personal marketing’. Cluster 5 – Traditional administrators, with a ‘marketing twist’.

Table 8. Analysis of variance for usage of support tools/approaches (factor scores) among clusters.

		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Workshops & lectures	Between groups	8.411	4	2.103	2.135	0.079
	Within groups	141.828	144	0.985
	Total	150.239	148
Consulting	Between groups	6.555	4	1.639	1.665	0.161
	Within groups	141.694	144	0.984
	Total	148.249	148
Receiving information	Between groups	12.398	4	3.099	3.669	0.007
	Within groups	121.657	144	0.845
	Total	134.054	148

Source: Research results.

Table

	Workshops/lectures	Receiving information	Consultations
1	.3531721	.2639050	.2728262
2	-.0492232	.0949604	.3226394
3	-.2363903	-.2632710	-.4051343
4	-.2507892	-.2341043	-.2073468
5	.0101782	-.0660020	-.1338539

Figure 2. Support tools/approaches usage profiles. Source: Author’s calculation.

Note: Cluster 1 – Use everything available. Cluster 2 – Receive information & seek individual assistance. Cluster 3 – Use the bare minimum. Cluster 4 – Use-little, except of showing up at the official information sessions. Cluster 5 – ‘Balanced’ support tools/approaches usage.