CC BY
9
Библиографический список
1. Велиева С.Г., Гасанова М.Д., Аминтаева С.А. Проблемы тьюторского сопровождения в современном образовании. Известия ДГПУ. Серия «Психолого-педагогические науки». 2016; 3.
2. Деражне Ю.Л. Тьютор в открытом обучении: учебно-методическое пособие. Москва: Издательство Департамента федеральной государственной службы занятости населения. 1998.
3. Основы деятельности тьютора в системе дистанционного образования. Специализированный учебный курс. Щенников С.А., Теслинов А.Г, Чернявская А.Г. и др. 2-е изд., испр. Москва: Дрофа, 2006.
4. Щенников С.А Открытое дистанционное образование. Москва: Наука, 2002.
5. Зинченко А.П. Тьютор: менеджер - маркетолог - продавец: расширенный взгляд. Система обеспечения качества в дистанционном образовании. Жуковский: МИМ.
6. Беков Х.А., Широбоков С.В., Кирьянов И.И. и др. Терминология в системе дополнительного профессионального образования. Словарь. Москва, 2001.
References
1. Velieva S.G., Gasanova M.D., Amintaeva S.A. Problemy t'yutorskogo soprovozhdeniya v sovremennom obrazovanii. Izvestiya DGPU. Seriya «Psihologo-pedagogicheskie nauki». 2016; 3.
2. Derazhne Yu.L. T'yutor v otkrytom obuchenii: uchebno-metodicheskoe posobie. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Departamenta federal'noj gosudarstvennoj sluzhby zanyatosti naseleniya. 1998.
3. Osnovy deyatel'nosti t'yutora v sisteme distancionnogo obrazovaniya. Specializirovannyj uchebnyj kurs. Schennikov S.A., Teslinov A.G, Chernyavskaya A.G. i dr. 2-e izd., ispr. Moskva: Drofa, 2006.
4. Schennikov S.A Otkrytoe distancionnoe obrazovanie. Moskva: Nauka, 2002.
5. Zinchenko A.P. T'yutor: menedzher - marketolog - prodavec: rasshirennyj vzglyad. Sistema obespecheniya kachestva v distancionnom obrazovanii. Zhukovskij: MIM.
6. Bekov H.A., Shirobokov S.V., Kir'yanov I.I. i dr. Terminologiya v sisteme dopolnitel'nogo professional'nogo obrazovaniya. Slovar'. Moskva, 2001.
Статья поступила в редакцию 19.12.16
УДК 378
Osama Arar, High School Principal (Lod, Israel), PhD Student, West University (Timisoara, Romania),
E-mail: arar.osama@gmail.com
Ran Bar-Am, Founder & CEO at BAR-AM Consulting Ltd. (Israel), PhD Student, West University (Timisoara, Romania),
E-mail: ran@bar-am.com
AN IMPACT OF A PRINCIPAL'S STYLE OF LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE IN AN ARAB SCHOOL IN ISRAEL. The study is aimed at examining by quantitative methods of research to what extent a management style affects the organizational climate in a school. In the experiment schools A, B and C of Arab sector in Israel participated. The researchers compared school A (the school for testing) with schools B+C (the schools for controlling). The research question is: what is the impact of the principal's management style on forming of the positive organizational climate of the school? The collection of quantitative data was conducted by means of validated questionnaires from relevant scientific literature. The findings indicate that a principal has a central role in a teacher's perception of professional autonomy. The sense of professional autonomy of a teacher is reinforced, when the teacher feels that the principal is an educational figure or a leader whom he can consult with regarding personal and professional problems. Differences were found between teachers in perception of school characteristics as providing various levels of autonomy.
Key words: management styles, authoritative-centralized, democratic-decentralizing, organizational climate.
Осама Арар, директор школы, Лод, Израиль, аспирант, Западный Университет, г. Тимишоара, Румыния,
E-mail: arar.osama@gmail.com
Ран Бар-Ам, основатель и генеральный директор фонда БАР - АМ Консалтинг Лтд. Израиль, аспирант Западный
Университет г. Тимишоара, Румыния, E-mail: ran@bar-am.com
ВЛИЯНИЕ СТИЛЕЙ РУКОВОДСТВА НА ОРГАНИЗАЦИОННЫЙ КЛИМАТ В АРАБСКИХ ШКОЛАХ В ИЗРАИЛЕ
В статье показаны результаты исследований, направленных на изучение влияния стиля руководства на организационный климат в школах. Для эксперимента были выбраны школы А (экспериментальная) и B и C (контрольные) из арабского сектора в Израиле. Для сравнения исследования были проведены в экспериментальной школе А. Полученные результаты были сравнены с результатами в контрольных группах - школах Б+С. В основе исследования находилась проблема изучения характера влияния основных стилей управления на формирование позитивного школьного климата. Сбор данных проводился на основе анкетирования. Полученные авторами результаты свидетельствуют о том, что стили управления руководства школ играют центральную роль в формировании профессиональной самостоятельности учителей. Чувство профессиональной автономии преподавателя подкрепляется возможностью получения своевременной консультации со стороны руководства в сфере личных и профессиональных проблем учителя.
Ключевые слова: стили руководства, авторитарно-централизованный стиль руководства, демократически-децен-трализованный стиль руководства, организационный климат в школе.
There is general consent on the fact that management approach [1] is an important component affecting performance and behavior of an organization. There is agreement amongst researchers that principals are a vital factor for the success of school [2].
Inclusion in management, pedagogic and technical fields contributes to a feeling of freedom and initiative at work, will guarantees high quality of decisions and problems resolution and success of the team [3].
Oplatka [4] attributes great importance to a principal's management style over a teacher's performances, thus the system and the
reciprocal relations between a teacher and a principal brings about better performance.
Several management styles exist in professional literature, such as dedicating, attentive, integrating, separated [5], bureaucratic, collegial, political, subjective, cultural, feedback-based management and inclusive managing [6; 7; 8].
Additionally, there is significance in separation between defining management and leadership and leadership styles such as educational, mission-oriented, existential, conversion, routine, serving, charismatic and transformational leadership [9; 10; 11].
In current study, the researcher will address to two management styles: Democratic-decentralizing management and authoritative-centralized style [12].
The democratic-decentralized leader, is one who has social and humane orientation towards his employees, a principal should lead out of the power of his authority as a specialist with inter-personal ties abilities rather than by the power of his formal authority, meaning, to manage a school from the center of inter-personal relations network rather than from the top of the pyramid.
Oppositely, authoritative-centralized leader, is one with an emphasized orientation for realizing of purposes and carrying out of duties of the group. He performs his job by power of personal authority, claims loyalty for himself, he is the only person to dictate, emphasizes ambitiousness and demands close supervision. According to this approach, a person looks for dependence on others and does not seek independence [13].
The researcher will examine school climate in current study according to part of the characteristics numbered by Zak and Horovitz [14].
Research purpose. The research purpose is to examine in a Quantitative research design to what extent management style affects organizational climate of schools A, B, C, while comparing the test group of school A to the control group of schools B+C.
Research question. What is the effect of a principal's management style on creation of a positive school organizational climate?
Research hypotheses
Hypothesis A: it will be found that the more democratic-decentralized is management style, thus the more positive will be school organizational climate.
Hypothesis B: it will be found that the more democratic-decentralized is management style, thus the more supportive will be educational leadership.
Hypothesis C: it will be found that the more democratic-decentralized is management style, thus adoption of innovations will be received with better understanding.
Hypothesis D: it will be found that the more democratic-decentralized is management style, thus more positive will be sense of autonomy of teachers.
Research field.
School A - that serves as a test group: school A: the school is municipal school that includes Junior High and High school. There are about 600 pupils in the school, they are all Arab. About 80 male and female teachers teach in the school, most of them Arab, about 10 are Jewish.
School B - that serves as part of the control group: 747
pupils study in it. The teaching staff numbers about 45 teachers with a relatively high average age. The school is located in an old building. The school principal was appointed to the position just one year ago.
demographic distribution of the sample: 48 female teachers and 8 male teachers participated in the study.
Research tools. Two validated questionnaires were used in the study:
Management style questionnaire. "Likert" type questionnaire for measuring of management style, there are five options for an answer: characterizing to large extent (5), characterizing (4), difficult to decide (3), not characterizing (2), definitely not characterizing (1). The examined subject will be asked to address to each statement in the questionnaire according to extent of his agreement with content of the statement. There are 16 statements in the questionnaire for measuring existent management style in school. In a study by Cohen [15], Cronbach Alfa of a=0.80 was found, regarding existent management style.
School organizational climate questionnaire. For the purpose of measuring school organizational climate, school organizational climate questionnaire by Zak [16] was selected. The Hebrew phrasing as examined and validated by Zak as well as Dror [17], was presented to the sample population, 44 items divided into 7 dimensions. The reliability of the tool was examined according to Cronbach's Alfa system and a=0.86 was found. For the entire tool Alfa spans between 0.86 and 0.88 for the items.
Findings. Regressions were conducted to examine the effect of management style on school climate. Additionally, after the schools were classified according to level of management decentralization, differences were examined in various variables that measure school climate, by conducting comparative T-tests between teachers' population in the various schools.
It was found that teachers in school A find management style in their school as decentralized regarding in relation to school teachers of school B. Additionally, teachers of school C find management style in their school as decentralized in relation to teachers of school B. It can be seen from the T-tests that in a comparison between schools A and B and in a comparison between schools C and B, averages differences in these two comparisons were significant. In a comparison between schools A and C, therefore, there is no significant difference in management style between schools A and C. Thus, in the following comparisons we will examine whether the climate and its different components match the decentralization rating in the three schools (from the T-tests, schools A and C are most decentralized and school B is least decentralized).
Results of hypothesis A. For examination of the hypothesis, we will conduct comparative T-tests to examine the differences of organizational climate averages between the schools.
Additionally, linear regression was conducted to examine the effect of decentralization level of management style on organizational climate.
Table 1
Results of comparing averages of answers to questions of school climate
School A B A C B A
Mean 3.39899 2.91866 3.39899 3.489234 2.91866 3.489234
Variance 0.067041 0.01517 0.067041 0.220349 0.01517 0.220349
Observations 18 19 18 19 19 19
t Stat 7.268647 -0.71834 -5.12479
P(T<=t) one-tail 8.63E-09 0.238659 5.13E-06
t Critical one-tail 1.689572 1.689572 1.688298
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.73E-08 0.477318 1.03E-05
t Critical two-tail 2.030108 2.030108 2.028094
School C - that serves as part of the control group: about 300 pupils study in it. The teaching staffnumbersabout 25 male and female teachers. The school principul is a youug peineipal uvho ia fha past served as a teacher in the school ana doe to Ms e 0a5 skiNa wha appointed to the position of principal
The questionnaires were distributed to all teachers who work in the three schools, however the queationnaires woteffleda ccording to the following: from school A - 18 teachers; from school B - 19 teachers; from school C - 19 teachero. eateN or56 ^rtit^pants. The
It can be seen from above table that teachers in school A con-siderthe climate intheirschool tobegood in relationto teachers of school EO Additlsnal^tooahe rsofschoolC considertde climate in toe^ tchool to °s goeci io relatisstoschosl atsacherh¡ehe averages diffetencesinthsse two compntisotid scssisniticant.There is no significant difference between the climate in schools A and C. The regreeeioo cseulte ars wsskly sieoificaot p - value < 0.1, and reflect a direct correlation between management decentralization level and school climate. Meaning that in a higher decentralization level we will
s
Table 2
The results of comparison of averages of answers to questions of school educational leadership
School A B A C B C
Mean 3.722222 2.807018 3.722222 4.122807 2.80701 e 4.12280b
Variance 0.105752 0.069084 0.105752 1.418895 0.069080 1.418890
Observations 18 19 18 19 19 19
tStat 9.439213 -1.37803 -4.70181
P(T<=t)one-tail 1.88E-11 0.08847Г - .g-EtOit
t Critical one-tail 1.689572 1.689-02 1.688298
P(T<=t)two-tail 3.75E-11 0.176941 3.72E-0b
tCriticaltwo-tail 2.030108 2.0301 Of Ы.0П00ПЫ
receive a better school climate. Additionally, we received an explanation percentage :R -sq = 0.047, that is considered low. It shows that additional variables, besides management decentralization, affect schoolclimate.
Results of hypothesis B. For examination of the hypothesis, we will conduct comparative T-tests to examine averages differences of educational leadership between the schools. Additionally, a linear regression was made to examine the effect of management decen-tralizationlevelon educationalleadership.
From above table it can be seen that teachers in school A consider educational leadership in their school to be good in relation to teachers of school B. Additionally, teachers of school C consider educational leadership in their school to be good in relation to teachers of school B. Averages differences in these two comparisons are significant. There is no significant differenceineducational leadership between schools A and C. The regression results are weakly significant, p - value <0.1 and reflect a direct correlation between management decentralization level and school management leadership. Meaning, in a higher decentralization level we will receive a
better leadership of school management. Additionally, we received an exalanatisn peeeentage R -sq = 0.056, whicC ieeonsiSered low. This shows that there are additional varicblesf Casieemanagement decentralization, which affects the leadershig afeahcel management.
Results of hypothesis C. For exa nana tion of the comparison we will perform comparative T-tests to examine averages of adopting innovations between the schools. Additionally, a lineet regression was conducted to examine effects of management style decentraliza-tionlevel onadoptionofinnovations.
From above table it can be seen that teachers in school A consider adoption of innovations in their schoo.feSe leaseeog|n relatton to teachers of schools B and C (average adifdgreaessaresignlficsnt only between A and C). Additionally, teachers of school C consider innovation adoption in their school to be gaodlere^tit^n toteaednre of school B (averages difference in this comparison is significant). The regression results are not significant p-value > 0.1, therefore, it is not possible to characterize according the regression results the correlation between management style and adoption of innovations inschool.
Tab.e 3
Results of comparing averages of answers to questio n on adoption of inn ovations
School A B 8 C B с
Mean 3.261905 3.428571 3.26 Г 905 3.774П36 3.428571 3.774436
Variance 0.247899 0.156463 0.247899 0i302003 0.156463 a.302303
Observations 18 19 t8 19 19 19
tStat -1.13057 -2.9667 -2.22581
P(T<=t)one-tail 0.132962 0.000698 0.016189
t Criticalone-tail 1.689572 1.689579 1.688298
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.265923 0.005b96 0.032378
t Critical two-tail 2.030108 2.030)08 2.028094
Table4
Resultsof linear regression: hypothesisC
RegressionStatistics
Multiple R 0.193112
R Square 0.037292
AdjustedRSquare 0.019464
StandardError 0.517421
Observations 56
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 0.560022 0.560022 2.091786 0.153873
Residual 54 14.45711 0.267724
Total 55 15.01713
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value
Intercept 2.631365 0.599301 4.390721 5.3E-05
Managementstyle 0.241755 0.167154 1.446301 0.153873
Summary: the comparison tests results partially reinforce the research hypothesis. The regression results are not statistically significant.
Results of hypothesis D. For examination of the hypothesis, we will perform comparatiec n-tests to examine the averages difierences of sense of autonomy between the schools. Additionally, a linear regression was conducteC fot examination df decentralization heel of management style on sense of autonomy.
Teachers in school A consider adoption of innovations in their school to be less good in relation to teachers of schools B and C (averages differences are significant only between A and C). Additionally, teachers of school C consider innovation adoption in their school to be good in relation to teachers of school B (averages differences in this comparison are significant).
Bogler [18] claimed that leadership style based on change and innovation employed by schools' principals affected satisfaction of
Table 7
Results of comparing averages of answerstoquestion on senseofautonomy
School A B A C B C
Mean 3.788889 3.410526 3.788889 3.284211 3.410526 3.284211
Variance 0.237516 0.117661 0.237516 0.183626 0.117661 0.183626
Observations 18 19 18 19 19 19
t Stat 2.742942 3.349831 1.003101
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.004767 0.000974 0.161254
t Critical one-tail 1.689572 1.689572 1.688298
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.009534 0.001947 0.322507
t Critical two-tail 2.030108 2.030108 2.028094
From above table it can be seen that teachers in school A consider the sense ofautonomyintheirschoolto begood inrelation to teachers of schools B and C. These two comparisons yielded significant results. notweeateaoSero of gohool Cand teaohoos of school B no significant difference was found. The regression results are not significant p - value > 0.1, therefore it is not possible to characterize the correlation between management style and sense of autonomy of schoolteachers accordingtoresultsofthe regress
teachers. As claimed by Levy, leadership currently is more related than before to ability of leading constant changes and innovation. As opposed to current study, which results of comparison tests reveal that decentralization in management style not necessarily bring about adoption of innovations in school A. However, results of the regressionare notstatisticallysignificant.
Teachers in school A consider sense of autonomy in their school to be good in relation to teachers of schools B and C. Those two
Table 8
Results of linear regression: hypothesis D
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.215069
R Square 0.046255
Adjusted R Square 0.028593
Standard Error 0.46025
Observations 56
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 0.554761 0.554761 2.618901 0.111424
Residual 54 11.43881 0.21183
Total 55 11.99357
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value
Intercept 2.632357 0.533083 4.937986 7.98E-06
Management style 0.240617 0.148685 1.618302 0.111424
Summary: the results of comparison tests show partially that decentralization in management brings about improvement in sense of autonomy. The regression results are not statistically significant.
Discussion of research findings From results of the study it can be seen that teachers in school A (control group) consider management style in their school as decentralized in relation to school B teachers. Additionally, teachers of school C consider management style in their school as decentralized in relation to teachers of school B. Averages differences in these two comparisons are significant.
There is no significant difference in management style between schools A and B. Therefore, comparisons were made that examined the components of schools climate and following are the results and evaluation of their validity:
Teachers in schools A and C consider educational leadership in their school to be good in relation to teachers of school B - significant results. Similar finding are found in Dror [17], in which positive school climate created was an outcome of supporting leadership and cooperation between the principal and teachers.
comparisons yielded significant results. No significant difference was found between teachers of school C and teachers of school B. This finding is similar to findings of Golan [19], who examined the linkage between development of autonomy foundations in a school and teachers' perception of management style of a school principal.
1) Differences were found between teachers in perception of school characteristics as providing various levels of autonomy. No school is similar to another.
2) All teachers report their school principal as leading the school towards changes and innovations.
3) No correlation was found between personal background variables and perceptions of teachers regarding principal's management style.
4) The principal has a central role in a teacher's perception of professional autonomy. The sense of professional autonomy of a teacher is reinforced the more a teacher senses that the principal is an educational figure or a leader whom he can consult with on personal and professional problems.
Teachers in school A consider the climate in their school to be good in relation to teachers of school B. Additionally, teachers of school C consider the climate in their school to be good in relation to teachers of school B. The averages differences in these two comparisons are significant. There is no significant difference in climate between schools A and C. This finding answers the main question and hypothesis of the study: indeed, decentralized management style affect the creation of school positive organizational climate!!!
Summary of conclusions and recommendations. In the
description of research field it was indicated that it is three schools from the Arab sector which include similar cross-section of population and teaching staff. Despite this, findings of the study determine that the principal of school B is less decentralized and more authoritative than in the other schools.
Indeed the data of school B are different from rest of the schools in following details: it is the largest; the teachers are veterans and it is managed by a 'new female principal'. It is possible that connection of veteran teachers, a new female principal, meaning to say a 'woman principal' in the Arab sector, is the reason that causes teachers to evaluate her as authoritative rather than decentralized. Therefore, our recommendations to school principals are: to demonstrate openness and honesty [20], to reduce his self and allow the staff that works with him of expression possibility, he is required of constant improvement and constant learning. To learn and change and lead changes. To expect and to predict for the long term regarding the future of his pupils, the staff and the community. To insist on important things without
Библиографический список
nullifying himself in front of others. To maintain a combination of both approaches of accomplishing missions as well as the good feeling of staff members. To support and appreciate the people working with him. To create an open climate. To consult and guide the teachers in various fields such as, teaching methods, violence, resolution of problems and discipline. To provide resources and control the use thereof. To know how to evaluate teaching programs and methods, study books. To be characterized by listening capability. To exhibit empathy. To have self-awareness. To understand the multiple context the school operates in, in political, social, economic, legal and cultural fields, to have strong and reasonable personality that can withstand pressures.
In summary, it is possible to say, that it is difficult to evaluate the work of a principal due to the fact that his work is complex, having many facets and dependent upon context. In an attempt to respond to these difficulties, various methods were employed. One of the ways to sort the evaluation is '360 degrees feedback' for principals' evaluation [21]. The method is considered as one of the most effective tools to evaluate performance of a principal, see for example an up-to-date study, conducted on 785 managers in American Tax Authority [22]. Therefore, the researchers recommend to conduct a future study as a research thesis for Master's degree which would include: quantitative research similar to current study in which the sample population will be increased to 156 teachers from all schools of the Arab sector. For purpose of validation, '360 degrees feedback' questionnaire will be used, similarly to that of the study of Trivka [22].
1. Гольман Д. Лидерство, которое достигает результатов. 2000. Executive Исполнительный, апрель-май, 2000): 20 - 31.
2. Сержиовани Т И. Управление школой: теоретические и практические аспекты. Тель-Авив: Открытый Университет, 2002.
3. Фридман Ю. Будучи директором школы: давление, выгорание и владение собой. Иерусалим: Генриетта Сольд издание, 1995.
4. Оптака Я. Основы управления образованием: руководство и управление в образовательной организации. Хайфа: Пардес 2010.
5. Хен Ю., Мор М. Управление восприятием средних школ и измерения взаимного допуска, Комментарии в области управления и организации в сфере образования. 2004; Том. 28: 37 - 61.
6. Фишер Ю., Фридман Ю. Организационно-управленческая пирамида модель: Обратная связь-модель. Комментарии в области управления и организации образования. 2003; Том. 27: 153 - 175.
7. Райтер С. Восприятие в арабском секторе - влияние стиля управления и организационного климата на эффективность школы. Комментарии в области управления и организации образования. 2005; Том. 30: 37 - 61.
8. Зафтир С. Управление неполной средней и средней школе принципы комплексной шестилетней школы и их связь с проблемами взаимодействия. Зрительный контакт. 200; Том. 132: 20 - 21.
9. Биггер Н. Воспитатель в детском саду, в яслях и лидер в области образования. Детский сад Эхо. 2003; Вып. 68 (1): 14 - 18.
10. Даган M. Лидерство и руководство. SdeHemed, 2000: 131 - 147.
11. Фридман Ю. Руководство и зрелость команды - модель для изменений представляя школ. Комментарии в области управления и организации образования. 1993; Том. 19: 29 - 46.
12. Фридман Ю. Школьной климат: профессиональный обзор литературы. Иерусалим: Генриетта Сольд издание, 1995.
13. Фридман Ю. Учитель как организатор: идеалы и ожидания получения. Комментарии в области управления и организации образования. Центр управления и оценки в области образования, Университет Хайфы. 2004; Том. 28.
14. Зак И., Горовиц Т. Школа - это тоже мир учителя. Тель-Авив: Публикации Рамот, 1985.
15. Коэн (Zaafrani) А. Профессиональная самооценка учителя и его стиль управления: магистерская диссертация. Рамат-Ган: Бар-Иланского университета, Департамент образования, 2002 год.
16. Зак И. Организационный климат школы. В: Леви, А. &нево Д. (ЭЦП), Оценка роли в образовании. Лондон: Гордон и нарушение, 1981: 409 - 432.
17. Дрор А. Корреляция между школьной атмосферой, ощущение эффективности деятельности педагогов и отношение учителей к интеграции учащихся с особыми потребностями. Тель-Авив: Тель-Авивский Университет, Департамент образования, программы аспекты развития, 2001.
18. Боглер Р. Влияние стиля руководства на удовлетворённость работой учителя. Администрация образования: ежеквартальник. 2001; том. 37: 662 - 683.
19. Голан Н.В. Восприятие учителя различных автономных условий основной школы (восемь исследований): Магистерская диссертация. 1995. Тель-Авив: Тель-Авивский Университет, Департамент образования.
20. Шехтер Х. Автономия в системе образования. Комментарии в области управления и организации образования. 2002; Том. 26: 69 - 92.
21. Министерство образования, подразделения администрации школы. 360-градусная обратная связь для оценки участников. Ежемесячный журнал для поощрения лидерства, профессионализма, мастерства и совершенства в управлении школой в начальном образовании. 10. 2007.
22. Леви Е. Управление и смена лидерства и инноваций. Публикации римоним, 2008.
References
1. Golman D. Leadership that achieves results, 2000.Executive (April-May, 2000), pp. 20-31.
2. Sergiovanni T.J. School management theoretical and practical aspects. Tel-Aviv: Open University, 2002.
3. Friedman Y. Being a school principal: pressure, burnout and coping. Jerusalem: Henrietta Szold publication, 1995.
4. Oplatka Y. Basics of educational administration, leadership and management in educational organization. Haifa: Pardes, 2010.
5. Hen Y., Mor M. Management perceptions of post-Primary school principals and dimension of peer tolerance, 2004. Reviews in Administration and Organization in Education, vol. 28, pp. 37-61.
6. Fisher Y., Friedman Y. Organizational management pyramid model: feedback-based model, 2003.Reviews in Administration and Organization of Education, vol. 27, pp. 153-175.
7. Somech A., Reiter S. Perception of duty of a principal in Arab sector - effect of management style and organizational climate on school effectiveness, 2005. Reviews in Administration and Organization of Education, vol. 30, pp. 37-61.
8. Zafrir S. Management styles of Junior-High and High school principals in comprehensive six-year schools and their linkage to the six-year interaction problems, 2003. Eye Contact, vol. 132, pp. 20-21.
9. Bigger H. The kindergarten teacher as manger and educational leader, 2003. Kindergarten Echo, vol. 68(1), pp. 14-18.
10. Dagan M. Leadership and management, 2000. SdeHemed, vol. 44(3-1), pp. 131-147.
