JES: Fall 2010, Vol. 9, #2

In This Issue:

Increasing Novice Teacher Effectiveness with Action Research-Based Professional Learning Communities Lynn R. Miller, Ed.D., Arizona State University Heather Efaw, M.Ed., Harold W. Smith Elementary School

Comparing Principal Influences on Curriculum and Staffing Issues at Urban High and Low Achieving Secondary Schools Emiel W. Owens, Jr. Ed.D., Texas Southern University Collette M. Bloom, Ed.D., Texas Southern University Patricia A. Smith, Ed.D., Prairie View A & M University

Troops-to-Teachers: Are They One Answer to Staffing Effective Schools? Leslie S. Kaplan, Ed.D., School Administrator (Retired)/

Education Writer, Newport News, Virginia William A. Owings, Ed.D., Professor of Educational Leadership Old Dominion University

Book Review: Shaping School Culture: Pitfalls, Paradoxes & Promises 2nd Edition Reviewed by: Leslie S. Kaplan, Ed.D., School Administrator (Retired)/

Education Writer, Newport News, Virginia William A. Owings, Ed.D., Professor of Educational Leadership Old Dominion University

Our Mission The Journal for Effective Schools provides educators and administrators involved or

interested in the Effective Schools process with the opportunity to share their research, practice,

policies, and expertise with others.

Published by the Journal for Effective Schools at Old Dominion University College of Education Educational Foundations and Leadership

Journal for Effective Schools

research practice policies

Fall 2010 Volume 9, Number 2

Journal for Effective Schools Volume 9, Number 2

1

The Journal for Effective Schools

Volume 9, No. 2 Fall, 2010


2


3

AIM and SCOPE The Journal for Effective Schools publishes original contributions in the following areas:

Research and Practice – Empirical studies focusing on the results of applied educational research specifically related to the Effective Schools Process.

Educational Practices – descriptions of the use of the Effective Schools Process in classrooms, schools, and school districts to include instructional effectiveness, evaluation, leadership, and policy and governance

Preparation of Educational Personnel - Research and practice related to the initial and advanced preparation of teachers, administrators, and their school personnel including staff development practices based on the Effective Schools Process.

Other – Scholarly reviews of research, book reviews, and other topics of interest to educators seeking information on the Effective Schools Process.

CORRELATES OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS

A clearly stated and focused mission on learning for all – The group (faculty, administration, parents) shares an understanding of and a commitment to the instructional goals, priorities, assessment, procedures, and personal and group accountability. Their focus is always, unequivocally, on the student.

A safe and orderly environment for learning - The school provides a purposeful, equitable, businesslike atmosphere that encourages, supports, allows mistakes, and is free of fear. School is a place that does no harm to developing psyches and spirits.

Uncompromising commitment to high expectations for all – Those who are leaders empower others to become leaders who believe and demonstrate that all students can attain mastery of essential skills. This commitment is shared by professionals who hold high expectations of themselves.

Instructional leadership - Although initially coming from the principal, teacher, or administrator, the goal is to include all participants as instructional leaders as their knowledge expands as a result of staff development. New insights excite and inspire. In the accountable learning community, everyone is a student and all can be leaders.

Opportunity to learn is paramount - Time is allocated for specific and free-choice tasks. Students take part in making decisions about goals and tasks.

Frequent monitoring of progress – Effective schools evaluate the skills and achievements of all students and teachers. No intimidation is implied. Rather, monitoring often is individualized, with improvements in learning as the goal.

Enhanced communication - Includes home, school, and community coming together as partners in learning for all.

*Adapted from Phi Delta Kappa International


4


5

From the Editors The absence of significant improvement in public schools despite over 40 years of wide-spread national reforms attests to school culture‘s ability to effectively undermine school improvement strategies.

School culture is a set of implicit, shared assumptions, values, norms, and actions that define a school‘s ―persona.‖ Typically implicit and operating outside conscious awareness, school culture is the general ―feel‖ people get when they walk into a school and through its halls. It is the unwritten rules which guide how to think, feel and act in an organization. Culture influences every aspect of schools, including staff wardrobe, what staff discuss in the teachers‘ lounge, how teachers decorate their classrooms, their emphasis on certain curricular topics, their willingness to change, and their confidence in their collective abilities to achieve their goals. School culture determines how principals and teachers relate to each other and how educators relate to students. Their interactions shape and reinforce the culture in a self-perpetuating cycle. By influencing behavior, school culture influences how well teachers teach and how much students learn.

Generated and strengthened over the years through unwritten, shared rules, school culture generally resists change. The good news is that educators can alter their school cultures when they make their implicit assumptions, norms, and behaviors conscious and when they construct and enact common strategies that support enhanced teaching and learning.

―Culture is organic to its community; if the culture changes, everything changes.‖1 School culture is not static. Rather, it is constantly being assembled and shaped through interactions with others and by reflections on life and the world in general.

The Effective Schools movement grew from the concept that deliberately shaping school culture in meaningful ways could strengthen teaching, learning, and achievement for traditionally underserved students. The articles in this JES issue address the school culture theme from a variety of perspectives.

In ―Increasing Novice Teacher Effectiveness,‖ Lynn Miller and Heather Efaw place action research and mentoring novice teachers within an Effective Schools framework. They clearly describe how an action research-based professional learning community (PLC) can help new-to-the-profession teachers learn to how use assessment data to improve instructional practices and increase individual students‘ achievement. In a cycle of continuous improvement, teachers acting as researchers in real-work settings gather data about how and what they teach and how well their students are learning. 1 Donahoe, T. (1993). Finding the way: Structure, time, and culture in school improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 75 (4), 298-305 (p. 302).


6

By sharing their ideas and experiences in a replicable, hands-on manner, their article gives school leaders and teachers a collaborative process to help beginning teachers implement a proven Effective Schools practice: using frequent and varied assessments to improve each student‘s academic attainment.

The principal‘s role as an instructional leader engaged in standards-based school improvement gives them responsibility for a variety of school operations which impacts students‘ academic success. In ―Principals‘ Perception of Influence,‖ Emiel Owens, Collette Bloom, and Patricia Smith use the first year follow up of the Educational Longitudinal Survey of 2002-2004 (ELS: 02) to study principals from high- and low-achieving urban schools‘ perceptions of their influences on assorted school factors: staffing, curriculum, discipline, and school funds disbursement They found significant differences between principals‘ perceptions of efficacy in high- and low-achieving schools. The relationship between principal efficacy and student achievement in high-and low- achieving schools is worth considering.

For a variety of reasons, school districts have major difficulties staffing high-poverty schools with experienced and capable teachers and administrators. William Owings and Leslie Kaplan ask, ―Are Troops-to-Teachers a Staffing Solution?‖ Since 2005, Owings and Kaplan have conducted three separate national studies on Troops-to-Teachers (TTTs), a cadre of retired career military officers who used Troops-to-Teachers funding to become licensed classroom teachers. Many have since become school administrators. Both tend to work in high-poverty, high-minority schools. All three studies show TTTs outperforming their non-TTT peers. Authors discuss the causes of the educator quality gap in high-poverty schools, how TTTs meet Effective Schools correlates, and factors influencing these positive findings.

Finally, Kaplan and Owings‘ book review identifies a resource for school leaders seeking to make a greater impact on their school culture. Shaping culture is one of a school leader‘s most important responsibilities. In Shaping School Culture (2nd Edition, 2009), Terrence E. Deal and Kent D. Peterson argue that today‘s school must be both technically competent and spiritually meaningful if they are to improve teaching and learning. With abundant case studies (particularly in varied minority communities) and detailed strategies (which include actively engaging with parents and community), Deal and Peterson offer ways for school leaders to positively shape their school culture and create sustainable school change.

Happy reading! William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan Editors


i

Table of Contents The Journal for Effective Schools

Articles Increasing Novice Teacher Effectiveness with Action Research-Based Professional Learning Communities ............................................................................. 1 Lynn R. Miller and Heather Efaw Comparing Principal Influences on Curriculum and Staffing Issues at Urban High and Low Achieving Secondary Schools ............................................... 11 Emiel W. Owens, Jr., Collette M. Bloom, and Patricia A. Smith Troops-to-Teachers: Are They One Answer to Staffing Effective Schools? .......... 29 Leslie S. Kaplan and William A. Owings Book Review Shaping School Culture: Pitfalls, Paradoxes, & Promises, 2nd Edition by Terrence E. Deal and Kent D. Peterson.................................................................. 59 Reviewed by: Leslie S. Kaplan and William A. Owings


ii


1

Increasing Novice Teacher Effectiveness with Action Research-Based Professional Learning

Communities Lynn R. Miller, Ed.D.

Arizona State University

Heather Efaw, M.Ed. Harold W. Smith Elementary School

Abstract

The most recent Effective Schools Conference focused on important questions all educators should be asking themselves to make their schools and classrooms as effective as possible. For example, ―How do we become data driven without data driving everyone crazy?‖ This question is particularly important for novice teachers who are just learning how to make data-based instructional decisions. Novice teachers must become competent in using a variety of assessment procedures to gather student achievement data. Competency in making this practice part of the novice teacher‘s instructional repertoire can be facilitated from structured guidance and support obtained from their fellow teachers. Implementing action research-based professional learning communities is a promising approach to achieving this end.

Key words: Professional learning community, formative assessment, novice teacher, action research

Introduction

The Effective Schools framework has a documented track record for turning around struggling schools, and the Effective Schools correlates have provided schools throughout North America with a solid framework for continuous and sustainable improvement. Continuing to build on the established platform of success, the most recent Effective Schools Conference focused on important questions to make schools and classrooms as effective as possible. One question the conference program suggested attendees consider was, ―How do we become data driven without data driving everyone crazy?‖ This question is important for all educators, but it is of particular importance for our new-to-the-profession colleagues, especially those who are teaching at-risk students at failing schools where achievement data is the yardstick measuring academic success.


2

Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress

The Effective Schools model suggests three components that address frequent monitoring and using student data to increase student achievement. The data-referenced components suggest educators do the following: (1) measure student academic progress frequently, (2) use a variety of assessment procedures and, (3) use the results of the assessments to improve individual students‘ performance.

A problem with this approach, particularly for novice teachers, is how to

put this advice fully into practice successfully implementing all three components. Let‘s look at each of the components individually through a novice teacher‘s eyes.

First, component one suggests that teachers frequently measure student academic progress. This is typically a practice that is already securely in place, particularly for at-risk students in classrooms at struggling schools that may be in school improvement or corrective action status. Novice teachers walk into a school that already has in place, at least to some degree, a regular assessment schedule to measure student academic progress, with the teachers receiving assessment data back for each student in their classrooms. For this discussion, let‘s assume that the teacher receives the data back in a timely manner, say within five days. We will consider this data to be formative in nature, that is, the teacher would be able to use it to modify and adjust his or her instruction while he or she still has the students in class. In other words, teachers use the assessment data to ―form‖ instruction that meets the students‘ learning needs. Second, component two suggests educators triangulate data with a variety of assessments used to measure student performance. This may or may not occur in many schools. If the schools already have a variety of assessments that they use to measure student achievement—great! If not, then the novice teacher is on his or her own to locate and learn how to administer and interpret assessments and the resulting data. This generally does not pose too much of a problem for teachers with the advent of the internet where a wide variety of assessments can be located and used as is, or be modified and adjusted by the teacher to meet his or her assessment needs.

And finally, component three suggests that teachers use the assessment results to improve individual student performance. This isn‘t as easy as it sounds, especially for the novice teacher. Just because teachers are teaching in the Information (aka data) Age doesn‘t mean that they need all the information, or that they know what to do with the information that they do need. Using assessment data to improve instructional practices, and ultimately student achievement, requires careful contemplation and analysis. The level and rigor of


3

contemplation and analysis required cannot be done alone, especially by a novice teacher. Here is where an action research-based professional learning community (PLC) comes in.

It has been our experience that an action research-based learning community is the answer to the question, ―How do we become data driven without data driving everyone crazy?‖ and also supports novice teachers implement a proven Effective Schools practice. It becomes more than just frequent monitoring of student progress. It now is frequent monitoring of instructional practices and the result of instructional practices on student progress. Action Research-Based PLCs - A Promising Practice

One step supporting novice teachers‘ ability to enhance their instructional effectiveness is to help them scale up their teaching as a result of reviewing student assessment data. Scalability refers to a system's capacity to adapt to change. Scalability also applies to school practices that assist beginning teachers. Many colleges of education deans have discovered that the addition of alternative teacher preparation components, such as action research supported by professional learning communities (PLCs), increased the scalability or the capacity of traditional programs (Koerner, Lynch, and Martin, 2008). Recently, many school districts have also discovered the value of PLCs and how they provide for teacher development and ultimately student achievement. Functional scalability refers to the ability to enhance something by adding a new function. Our thesis for this piece is that adding the new function of action research to a PLC enhances the PLC as it now utilizes student performance data gathered as a result of purposeful instruction. This is especially true for beginning teachers. In our experience, the following questions about the benefits of participating in action research-based PLCs include: What does action research for novice teachers look like?

What are action research-based PLCs?

Why should novice teachers participate in action research-based PLCs?

What are the essentials of an effective action researched-based PLC?

What steps are involved in preparing, facilitating and following-up for action research-based PLCs for educators who wish to start one?

What are the expectations of the novice teacher as a PLC member?

How can the functional scalability of action research-based PLCs be enhanced?


4

This article intends to answer those questions by sharing our own experiences and ideas regarding this practice that supports student growth by modifying and adjusting one‘s instructional practices based on the facts presented by real data.

What does action research for novice teachers look like?

Action research is classroom-based investigation conducted by teachers acting as teacher-researchers who gather data about: (1) how and what they teach, and (2) how well their students are learning. Teachers conduct investigations in real-work settings to answer a question and/or assess the impact of a practice on improving student learning (Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour, 2002). Teachers gather information with the goals of gaining insight, developing reflective practice, effecting positive changes, and improving student learning (Mills, 2007). Beginning teachers are already in the field and have their own classroom of students. Student achievement-driven action research is a cyclical process that involves analyzing student achievement data to determine problem areas. As they engage in student achievement-driven action research, teacher-researchers identify a focus area based on their own students‘ achievement data, review professional literature related to the focus area, develop and deliver an intervention, gather and interpret resulting student achievement data, reflect on the effects of the intervention, and modify and adjust instruction with support by colleagues in a PLC. This process creates a continuous cycle of improvement. What are “action research-based” PLCs?

Most PLCs are typically composed of members who collaborate to encourage and assist each individual‘s continued improvement in instruction. Action research-based PLCs have as their intended outcome a shift from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning as measured by student achievement data; from what the teacher taught to what the student learned; from infrequent summative assessments to frequent formative assessments; and from reactive remediation to proactive intervention (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006). Action research-based PLCs can come in all shapes and sizes. For example, they can be composed of teachers from various grade levels, subjects, schools, and perhaps even different districts. A unique strength of this model is that it does not confine teachers from particular grade levels. Instead, it maximizes interaction among schools and school districts‘ results (Nespor, 2002).

Why should novice teachers participate in action research-based PLCs?

In 2009, United States Secretary of Education Arne Duncan delivered a speech entitled, Teacher Preparation: Reforming the Uncertain Profession at Teachers


5

College, Columbia University (released October 22, 2009). In his speech, Secretary Duncan shared findings from the 2006 Levine report, a recent comprehensive study of education schools conducted by Arthur Levine, former president of Teachers College (Levine, 2006). Citing the study, Secretary Duncan noted that three out of five education school alums reported not receiving the hands-on practical teacher training they needed, especially for high-needs students; nor were they taught how to use data to improve instruction.

We suggest that the inclusion of action research-based PLCs addresses

both of these concerns. Action research is conducted in a hands-on manner by teachers and can target high-needs students. Furthermore, action research involves teachers gathering and analyzing a variety of formative and summative data so that they can differentiate instruction to meet students‘ learning needs within the classroom with the ultimate goal of increasing student achievement.

What are the essentials of an effective action researched-based PLC?

Similar to the Effective Schools components, we have found the following five essentials support an effective action research-based PLC:

1. PLCs Focused on Action Research - This establishes a common goal for all PLC members, especially those who may be coming from diverse grades, subject areas, schools, or even districts.

2. Scheduled Meetings – Meetings must be held on a regular basis for the purposes of either teacher interaction or teacher observations. We suggest that meetings are held in a PLC member‘s classroom as we found that teachers come away with ideas they can try in their own classrooms just by visiting the room of another teacher who is engaged in teaching.

3. Small Groups - In a small group format, such as five or six members, it is easier for all to actively participate in collegial support of student achievement.

4. Videos and Reflections – This is one of the most important components that bolsters both prospective and beginning teachers. At each meeting, each teacher should present a 5- to 10-minute video clip illustrating the teacher‘s implementation of an action research intervention. After viewing the videos at the meeting, PLC members discuss observations and provide feedback. Following the meeting, each member submits a written reflection to a pre-designated facilitator. The following example illustrates the power of the videos and reflection as one teacher noted on her reflection, ―Another suggestion was to implement a more elaborate vocabulary lesson when I introduce the new text each Monday. My PLC suggested I set up a system for students to either learn new vocabulary or review the previous week‘s vocabulary independently while they are 'on deck' to meet with me.‖


6

5. Student Work Samples – Teachers MUST bring student work samples aligned to their action research. Following a review of student work samples and assessment options discussed in his PLC, one teacher noted, ―The new information that was shared was helpful in refining the ways that I will assess myself and my students. My colleagues shared a rubric I can use to assess my effectiveness regarding teaching a math problem-solving lesson. Additionally, they gave me ideas for developing a similar rubric to assess how well my students are able to complete problem-solving questions.‖

What steps are involved in preparation, facilitation and follow-up for action research-based PLCs for educators who wish to start one?

Three critical supports include preparing, facilitating, and following-up.

Preparing - The first step in preparing is to review the roster of possible participants and create PLC groups. Grouping considerations should include grade levels or subjects taught, and university and school district calendars. A centrally located school where each group meets, and a teacher designated at each school meeting site to serve as a host for their respective PLC meetings should be identified in cases where PLCs will be composed of members from more than one school. The next step is securing district-provided video cameras, distributed one per PLC group, with the host teacher assigned to oversee camera use to support this process. Finally, we recommend that PLC members are provided with a comprehensive lesson plan template to complete and distribute to all PLC members prior to each meeting to allow members to preview colleagues‘ lessons and facilitate conversation at the meeting.

Facilitating - PLC meeting facilitation can be provided by any of the following: building-level administrator, district staff development coordinator, or teacher-leader. Another option is for the PLCs to be facilitated by a member of the PLC. Even multiple members can serve the facilitator role in a rotating fashion. Yet, regardless of who facilitates the meeting, we recommend his or her role is to model and provide for an atmosphere maintaining "an openness that allows for serious reflection and discussion of practice, as well as the commitment to improve" (Koerner, Lynch, Martin, 2008, p. 727).

Following-Up – This can take the form of a follow-up email complimenting the teachers who presented the lesson interventions or suggesting a resource, a review of teacher reflections, or classroom discussion questions.


7

What are the expectations of the novice teacher as a PLC member?

In order to maximize the effectiveness of action research-based PLCs, there are certain expectations that all teachers must meet including preparing, actively participating, reflecting, and modifying and adjusting instruction to support a cycle of continuous improvement.

Preparing - Before each PLC meeting, teachers need to prepare for the meeting by creating a lesson plan reflecting their action research focus, videotaping a section of their focus lesson showcasing teacher and student interactions, collecting student work samples from the lesson, and e-mailing their lesson plan to other PLC members. By taking these advance steps, the meeting will focus on action research rather than organizational or other details. Additionally, by reviewing videos prior to the meeting, we found that PLC members ensure videos are visually clear and audible. This avoids presenting videos that are too dark to permit plainly seeing the classroom interaction or videos without understandable and easy to hear sound.

Actively Participating – All participants‘ active engagement is critical to success. Novice teachers must be ready to give and receive constructive feedback. Before any teachers share their videotaped lesson at the meeting, they should provide a brief summary regarding classroom activities surrounding their action research focus to ensure feedback is relevant and useful. After the teacher has given a brief summary, other PLC members should ask clarifying questions and/or give feedback regarding what they heard or observed. For example, an appropriate question might be centered around student learning, such as discussing relevant data or artifacts of learning the teacher collected in support of the action research. All feedback must be given in a supportive, professional manner.

Reflecting - Following each PLC meeting, members reflect upon feedback they received and use their own observations to determine next steps regarding their action research. Particular attention should be given to what data will be collected as evidence regarding an improvement in student learning. Reflection is a key portion action research‘s cyclical nature. According to Mills (2007), action research is a cycle of reflecting, taking action, evaluating, and starting the process over again. Reflecting cannot be underestimated or overlooked.

Modifying and Adjusting Instruction - The most important step PLC members must take is modifying and adjusting their lessons to sustain a continuous cycle of improvement. While the entire process of participating and reflecting about the action research intervention is valuable, it is only effective when teachers apply in their classrooms the knowledge gained from participating in a PLC. For example, one of our PLC members realized she was


8

not challenging all of her students during mathematics instruction while implementing her action research intervention to teach problem solving skills. Upon reflection and dialogue with others in her PLC meeting, she decided to modify the numbers she gave students to ensure she met the students at their instructional level. She reflected, "If I would not have taken the feedback I received and modified my instruction, some of my students would still be solving word problems below their instructional levels."

How can the functional scalability of action research-based PLCs be enhanced?

Utilizing PLC Protocols - Determining and utilizing PLC protocols so that novice teachers can continue to use these protocols as they learn to self-facilitate PLCs is a logical next step. Although they vary in terms of purpose, context, and questions asked, protocols used as a procedural reinforcement provide structure and allow PLC groups to explore ideas more deeply. As Easton (2009) noted in her book, Protocols for Professional Learning, "Protocols are what help keep the 'professional learning' in the name" (p. 16) of PLCs.

Expanding Best Practices and Sharing Resources – Frequently, teachers share best practice ideas, tips, and resources at PLC meetings that other teachers can put to use in their own classrooms. A central location should be identified and utilized as a storehouse for these resources. One way we found to be successful was to use a web-based program to which all PLC members have access, such as GoogleDocs. Teachers can upload their resources to the database and others can then download.

Conclusion

Based on our experience, action research-based PLCs support hands-on, practical teacher development involving the data-referenced components suggested by the Effective Schools model including: (1) the frequent measure of student academic progress, (2) use a variety of assessment procedures and, (3) use the assessment results to improve individual students‘ performance. We also found that functional scalability is achieved as action research adds so much to the basic general format of PLCs.


9

References

DuFour, R., DuFour, R, Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Duncan, A. Released Oct 22, 2009. Teacher preparation: Reforming the uncertain profession. Remarks made at Teachers College, Columbia University. http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/10/10222009.html.

Eaker, R., DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Koerner, M., Lynch, D., & Martin, S. (2008). Why we partner with teach for America. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 726-729.

Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, D.C.: Education Schools Project. p. 36. http:www.edschools.org/teacher_report.htm.

McNiff, J. (2002). Action research for professional development. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/aandr.htmlhttp://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html.

Mills, G. (2007). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Nespor, J.( 2002). Networks and contexts of reform. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 365-382.

Author: Lynn R. Miller Clinical Assistant Professor, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, 641 East Van Buren Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Phone: 623.707.5065; Fax: 602.496.2067; Email: [email protected] Consultant/Owner, Learning, Leading, and Beyond Educational Consulting LLC, 14270 North 154th Lane, Surprise, Arizona 85379; Email: [email protected] Area of Specialization: Supervision and instruction; action research; educational consultant; former elementary principal.

Co-Author: Heather Efaw, M.Ed., Teacher, Harold W. Smith Elementary School, Glendale Elementary School District, 6534 North 63rd Avenue, Glendale, Arizona 85301; Phone: 623-237-431 Area of Specialization: Novice elementary school teacher of high-needs students.

http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/10/10222009.html

http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/aandr.htmlhttp:/www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html

http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/aandr.htmlhttp:/www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html


10


11

Comparing Principal Influences on Curriculum and Staffing Issues at Urban High and Low Achieving Secondary Schools

Emiel W. Owens, Jr. Ed.D Texas Southern University

Collette M. Bloom, Ed.D

Texas Southern University

Patricia A. Smith, Ed.D. Prairie View A & M University

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to compare and contrast influences principals have on staffing, curriculum issues and discipline policies in high and low achieving urban schools. The data for the present study were drawn from the first year follow up of the Educational Longitudinal Survey of 2002-2004 (ELS: 02), administered by the National Center for Educational Statistics. The results of this study revealed four areas where principals differed in their perceptions of their individual influences on academic achievement at their respective schools. Principals from high-achieving urban school tend to have more influence on hiring and firing teaching staff and curriculum issues, such as course offerings and curricular guidelines. Principals from low-achieving schools have more influence on school funding.

Keywords: leadership, student achievement, urban schools, effective schools, school improvement Introduction

Effective and successful public schools are highly regarded places of

learning. These ―good schools‖ (Glickman, 2010) offer researchers the opportunity to uncover and identify the factors correlated with student achievement within various socio-economic, gender and grade levels. Nevertheless, defining success and effectiveness narrowly limits the grasp of the more important phenomena of collective organizational action, agreed-on purpose, and belief in attainment (Spillane, Hallett, & Diamond, 2003). Measuring and defining school success becomes a complicated and difficult task for researchers. The experimental variables and variability can fluctuate depending on instrumentality, geographic region, or instructional leader. Glickman (1987) reasons that for a school to be or become successful, it must


12

clearly define success for itself by announcing a clear mission and measurable actions by all members of the school community.

This type of collaborative leadership practices empowers teachers to

create rich environments for learning. Strong leaders know how to mold the culture into a place where parents want their children to become ―independent, self-sufficient, and self-reliant‖ (Bloom & Erlandson, 2003). Ronald Edmonds is often quoted, but not refuted, in reasoning that effective schools for the urban poor "… have strong administrative leadership without which the disparate elements of good schooling could neither be brought together or kept together…‖ (p. 7). It was Edmonds who addressed effective instructional practice for the poor. ―[There] may be schools out there that have strong instructional leaders, but are not yet effective; however, we have never yet found an effective school that did not have a strong instructional leader as the principal‖ (p.10). Unsurprisingly, the principal stands as the centralizing force for teachers, students, and curriculum implementation within the school (Blasé 1987; Joyce, 1991; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2007; Tyler, 1987).

Spillane et al., (2003) confirm through their study that principals carry

with them several different forms of capital, (i.e., social, cultural and political) that has strong influence in specific socially constructed situations. The advantages of appropriate use of social capital include, but are not limited to, better group communications, more efficient collective action, better access to resources, and enhanced use of the organization‘s intellectual capital (i.e., improved instruction in classrooms) (Leana & Fritz, 2006). Further, when schools begin to rethink their current instructional designs to meet 21st century demands, or to retool their teachers‘ knowledge base in the use of appropriate technology instructional practices, the principal remains the standard-bearer for leading the change efforts (Purkey & Smith, 1983; Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, and Rodriguez, 2005), as well as sustaining that change.

Large, urban school districts face special challenges in the improvement of

academic performance caused by crime and poverty (Reyes, 2006; Owens, Perry, and Johnson, 2008; Waxman & Padron, 1995). Solutions for these problems tend to vary from commonplace to complex. The National Partnership for Teaching in At-Risk Schools (2005) contends that the dimensions of poverty and crime, coupled with the economic and social consequences for poor and minority children, continue to rank high as an ongoing educational issue. Nowhere are the social implications of increasing numbers of disadvantaged families living in urban areas more evident than in the large, urban school districts where the deleterious conditions of underachievement, student and teacher alienation, and high dropout rates exist (Owens & Song, 2009). Moreover, the physical structures and facilities in inner-city schools remain in disrepair and are in constant need of rehabilitation. In a 1998 report by the National Center for


13

Education Statistics, the average age of a public school in America was 42 years. These buildings are not only obsolete but contain environmental hazards with most of the oldest schools (over 60 years) ―serving mostly poor and minority students‖ (Lewis, 1989, p. 1).

The students most likely to drop out and not graduate from high school

attend these impoverished and failing schools. Disadvantaged schools with large, high-need populations demand leaders who understand the urgency of ―now‖, create rational resistance to unproductive and ineffective programs and practices for students, and commit to community-building with parents and stakeholders (Bloom & Erlandson, 2003). Consequently, daily administrative decision-making may directly or indirectly impact and influence the outcomes for student success. Using a large national sample, the purpose of the present study is to identify the degree of influences principals feel that they have at their schools. This study will also compare their perception of influence across principals‘ high- and low-performing academic environments.

Literature Review Effective School Research

According to the early research writings of Edmonds (1979) and Blasé (1987), and later Lezotte and Jacoby (1990), the ―effective school process is a school reform framework based on evolving research from both empirical and case studies of schools across the country that have been effective in teaching the intended curriculum to all of their students‖ (p. 10). Two additional standards are necessary in measuring the effectiveness of schools: quality and equity. Quality assures that the overall level of achievement is high, while equity assures that quality is found in all subgroups regardless of race, gender, socio-economic status or ability. These early studies identified five correlates, or indicators, of behaviors present in effective schools. The five-factor list formula contains the beginnings for further research on what an effective school must practice:

Strong leadership by the principal, especially in instructional

matters High expectations by teachers for student achievement An emphasis on basic skills An orderly environment Frequent, systematic evaluations of students (Edmonds, 1979)

More recent studies have added to the list. Within the lists of effective

school indicators a significant number of common characteristics occur. Hoy and Miskel (2008) clarify the overlap into the general areas of ―high-quality


14

curriculum; experienced, motivated, knowledgeable, and collegial teacher; clear goals and high achievement expectations; a healthy school climate that encourages teaching and learning; a staff development program rewards for success; involved parents; and strong instructional leadership by the principal and teachers‖ (p. 302-303).

From studies produced about effective school research, Murphy (1992)

collated his findings into the paper, “Effective schools: Legacy and future directions”. Here he listed what he believed the true legacy of effective schools research was:

All students can learn Schools should focus on student outcomes and rigorously assess

progress toward reaching those outcomes Schools should assume a fair share of the responsibility for student

learning. Schools should be structurally, symbolically, and culturally linked,

providing for consistency and coordination throughout the school community (pp. 165-168).

21st Century School Improvement Research

Taylor (2002) contends that school reform must now transition away from using effective school correlates as a way of defining the success of a school. School effectiveness research has a positive correlational aspect, but these characteristics are not causal. School reform efforts have tended to lean heavily on standardized tests, literacy examinations and other quantifiable data to determine if a school is effective. Cuban (1998) has cautioned against using limited snapshots to define effectiveness.

Findings indicate that effectiveness correlates should be viewed as prerequisites rather than guarantees of success; that policy and practices at the school level should consider contextual variables and set priorities accordingly; that tests should encourage the development of higher order skills; and that research should focus on both effective teaching skills and school practices. (p. 453) Much of the educational literature cites the impetus for the current

standards movements that was released in the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk. This landmark report asserted that in the poor educational performance of U.S. students resulted from the inadequacies of the educational system itself. Consequently, the public and, in turn, legislators were quick to jump on the education reform bandwagon (National Policy Board for Educational


15

Administration [NPBEA], 2002). These movements have resulted in principals who are expected to be accountable for their students, teachers, and staff.

Another landmark event took place in September, 1989, at the National

Education Summit involving the nation‘s governors and President George H. W. Bush. This meeting resulted in achievement goals that emphasized academic competency at all grade levels as well as increasing the national high school graduation rate to 90 percent (Marzano & Kendall, 1997). These recommendations brought national attention to the subject of standards and prompted organizations to establish standards within their respective fields. Subsequently, many legislators wanted every school to create and implement an improvement plan. In addition, they wanted every child to demonstrate academic competence. This movement resulted in mandating standardized testing as the method for measuring student performance and therefore effective teaching.

As such, school improvement based on these mandates forced principals

to focus on standards using the overarching goals of high academic expectations for all students, accountability for learning outcomes, including all students in improvement initiatives, and added flexibility to change instruction (Goertz, 2001; Jeffrey, 2007). In 2001, this movement resulted in legislators passing No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which set minimum levels of student achievement measured by standardized state and local assessments. NCLB called for ―highly qualified educators‖ to deliver instruction. The act imposed punitive actions by allowing their students to take the Title I funds allocations to other another school if students‘ present schools failed to meet imposed standards and were designated as failing (Gordon, 2001). Requiring this level of accountability resulted in outcries teachers and principals alike partly because of a lack of additional resources to meet what many believed was an ―unfunded mandate‖, which also included programs designed to alleviate achievement gaps for students who had not achieved ―proficiency‖ on the mandated tests.

Schmoker (2002), in his assessment of educational reform, stated that

standards had not added ―one iota of clarity to the confusion faced by the majority of teachers‖ (p.2) who were, for the most part, very successful in teaching their students. With public movements for student achievement for every child, principals have correspondently increased their expectations and accountability demands for all teachers and staff members in their schools. These demands have resulted in frustration and doubt for teachers who are constantly expected to participate in ongoing professional development that many believe excludes the essential needs of their students. Consequently, few states and the nation in general have not experienced the expected performance gains or reductions in achievement gaps from the billions of tax dollars invested in the reform movement (Reyes, 2006).


16

The contemporary principal‘s role as an instructional leader engaged in standards-based school improvement has evolved into one in which every stakeholder is empowered to participate in the learning process. Principals must know when to be a manger and when to be a leader. This type of leadership is difficult for some individuals because its very nature risks losing control of the school (Barth, 2001). Because it appears that education reform is with us to stay, accountability is now the standard for the principal, teacher, and student. LaPointe and Davis (2006) maintain that effective school leadership must include measures that allow for accountability and endorse progress of learning while still meeting the individual needs of students and promote learning that meets the needs of the whole child. The principal‘s ability to meet these two responsibilities are associated with influences they have over the operation of their schools (Edgerson & Kritsonis, 2006). This includes their impact on curriculum, staffing, and school environment issues. Each of these factors is interwoven into the fabric of the school, which helps define the overall academic success (Lunenburg & Orstein, 2008). Therefore, identifying specific influences that campus leaders have at their respective schools becomes the first step in determining which ones are important and how they lead to academic success.

METHOD

Participants The data for the present study was drawn from the first year follow-up of

the Educational Longitudinal Survey of 2002-2004 (ELS: 02). The ELS:04 is a national survey administered by the National Center for Educational Statistics to provide an overall picture of the present educational experience of high school students in the United States. The survey has four sub-components completed by students, teachers, parents, and school administrators. The present study used only the school administrators‘ survey data. Procedure

The design used to collect the data was a two-stage, stratified national

probability sample. Sample weights were provided in the survey to emulate population data. In this case, about 14,000 school high school administrators were surveyed representing schools across the country. For the present study, only high- and low-achieving urban school were included in this study. In determining the ranking of a campus, the item in the survey asking administrators, ―In the most recent test administration, what percentage of students taking the competency test failed on the first attempt?‖ was used as the marker for identifying school status (high/low achieving). School were ranked according to percent failed. Schools having a 25% or less failure rate were considered high-achieving urban schools. Similarly, schools that had a 75% failure rate were considered low-achieving urban school. Of the 5500 urban


17

schools in the sample, there were 987 schools classified as high-performing and 576 classified as low-performing schools used in the analysis. The principals‘ influences at their schools were compared across the two school settings. Instrument

The first follow-up survey examined principals‘ perceptions of their

influences at their schools. Principals‘ perceptions of their influences on teaching personnel, curriculum issues, discipline policies and school funding were examined. The item used to measure teaching personnel was principals‘ perceived influence on hiring/firing teachers. The items used to measure curriculum issues were (a) principals‘ perceived influence on course offerings, (b) principals‘ perceived influence on instructional materials, (c) principals‘ perceived influence on curricular guidelines and (d) principals‘ perceived influence on grading. The item used to measure the principals‘ influence on discipline policy was their perception of their influence on discipline policies. The item used to measure principals‘ influence on school funding was their perception of their influence on school funding at their schools. The possible responses to each items were ―no influence‖, ―some influence‖, and ―major influence‖. Analysis

To examine the relationship between principal influences and high- and

low-achieving schools, a series of logistic regression models were constructed and tested. Logistic regression models are mathematical models used to describe the relationship between several predictor measures and a dichotomous outcome measures. The dichotomous outcome measure in this study was school setting (high- or low- achieving schools). Principals at low-achieving schools were used as the reference group in the analysis. It should be noted that due to the small percent of principals indicating they had no influence on the predictor items, this response was combined with those responding ―some influence‖. Moreover, in the logistic model the multilevel response items were dichotomized into ―no influence‖, ―some influence‖, and ―major influence‖. The first model, for example, compared ―Staffing Issues‖ across high- and low-achieving schools. The model included one predictor measure, principals‘ perception of their influence on hiring/firing teachers. Due to only one predictor measure being used, the results of the logistic regression are equivalent to using a simple chi-square test. The major difference in the analysis is that the logistic method produces an odds ratio.

The second model compared items used to measure ―Curriculum Issues‖

across high- and low-achieving schools. In this model, logistic regression is used


18

to adjust for the complex interrelationships among the multiple items used. The remaining models used the same statistical techniques.

Results

Table 1 reports the overall frequent outcomes for the four categories of

principal influences at their schools. The first category is related to the influence principals have on selecting their teaching staffs. About 68% of the principals indicated that they had a major influence on hiring/firing teachers' at their schools. The remaining 32% of the principals surveyed indicated that they had some influence.

The second group of items relate to principals‘ influence on curriculum

issues at their schools. The first item indicates approximately 68% of the principals believed that they had a major influence on course offerings at their schools. Similarly, 32% of the principals surveyed indicated that they had some influence on course offerings. The second item indicated that about 44% of the principals indicated that they had a major influence on instructional materials at their schools. When asked about curricular guidelines, approximately 48%of the principals indicated that they had a major influence on curricular guidelines at their schools. For the final item measuring curriculum issues was principals‘ influence on grading and evaluation. Close to 60% of the principals indicated that they had a major influence on grading and evaluation at their schools.

The third category of principals‘ influences at their schools was discipline

policies. The results indicated that approximately 82% of the principals indicated that they had a major influence on discipline policies at their schools. The remaining 17% indicated that they have some influence on discipline policies at their schools.

The final category of principal influences at their schools was school

funding issues. The results indicated that about 43% of the principals indicated that they had a major influence on funding issues at their schools. Fifty-four percent indicated that they have some influence on funding issues at their schools. The remaining three percent indicated that they have no influence on funding issues at their schools.


19

Table 1 Principal Influences

No Some Major Influence Influence Influence Staffing Issues On hiring/firing teachers 0.5 31.8% 68.2% Curriculum Issues On course offerings 0.5 31.5% 68.5% On instructional materials 2.4 52.8% 44.8% On curricular guidelines 0.5 52.3% 47.7% On grading and evaluation 3.3 38.2% 58.5% Discipline Issues On discipline policies 0.5 17.5% 82.5% Funding Issues On school funds 3.4 53.9% 42.7%

To examine differences between administrators‘ opinions from high- and

low-achieving schools on the seven categories on selecting a post-secondary education, logistics models were constructed and analyzed. Table 2 looks at the results of the logistics analysis. The table reports two aspects of the logistic model: the logistic regression coefficient or parameter estimate and the odds ratio for an independent variable. The parameter estimate is used to predict the log odds (logit) of the dependent variable (School achieving level). In our case, the odds ratios indicate how more likely principals from high-achieving schools view an item as having a ―major influence‖ compared to principals from low-achieving schools. In these models low-achieving schools were used as the reference measure.

In the first model reviewed, principals from high- and low-achieving

schools were asked to indicate how much influence they had on hiring and firing teachers at their schools. The model produced a significant beta of 3.26, which was significant at the .001 level. The model also produced a large odd ratio indicating that principals from high-achieving schools perceive that they were 24 times more likely to have a greater influence on hiring and firing teachers at their schools compared to principals from low-achieving schools.

The second model compared principals‘ perceived influences on several

curriculum issues. The results indicated that high-achieving school principals believed they had significant greater influence on curriculum issues related to course offerings' and curricular guidelines' compared to their counterparts in low-achieving schools. In this case, course offerings and curricular guidelines produced significant (p < .001) beta of 2.66 and 3.47, respectively. The


20

implications of these measures suggest that principals from high-achieving schools were about 14 times more likely to perceive that they have a major influence on course offerings at their schools compared to principals from low-achieving schools. Similarly, principals from high-achieving schools were 32 times more likely to perceive that they have a major influence on curricular guidelines compared to their principal counterparts.

There was no significant association between principals from the two

performing levels on the principals‘ influence on discipline at their schools. In the final model, however, there was a significant difference on levels of influences by principals on school funds. In this case, principals from low-achieving schools perceive themselves to have a greater influence on school funding compared to their principal counterparts.

Table 2 Principal Influences

Staffing Issues Beta Exp(Beta) Sig On hiring/firing teachers 3.26 24.270 .001*** Curriculum Issues On course offerings 2.66 14.340 .000*** On instructional materials -.56 .569 .202 On curricular guidelines 3.47 32.127 .001*** On grading and evaluation .48 1.626 .224 Discipline Issues On discipline policies -.03 .963 .917 Funding Issues On school funds -2.85 .102 .001*** *** p < .001

Discussion Urban administrators are faced with many unique situations to be

successful in their schools environments. These professionals must understand the institutional factors that exist in high-need and (typically) under-funded schools and school districts that can undermine students‘ access to excellent and equitable education opportunities (Banks, 1989).

The results of this study also suggest that principal influences tend to vary

in high- and low-achieving schools. Variable analysis revealed four areas where principals differed in their perception of their individual influence on academic achievement at their respective schools. The effectiveness of principals in the


21

areas of staffing, curriculum/course selection, discipline, and funding are considered significant.

1. Principals at high-achieving schools believe that they have much

greater control over hiring and firing practices; low-achieving school principals do not carry that same belief about their control in the hiring or dismissal of their staff.

Teacher selection is perhaps the most crucial component in the effort in success of a school. Principals in high-achieving schools reported having more influence on faculty selection at their schools. This is an important finding because studies have suggested that the success of a principal is directly related to their teaching staffs (Cole-Henderson, 2000; Glickman, 1987; Gordon, 2002; Louis, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010). Principals depend on teachers to implement policies and to lead in the successful development of the school mission (McEwan, 2003; Wheelan, 2005). It is not surprising that at high-achieving schools, the school district is more amenable to the recommendations of the principal as to staff selection. School districts tend to have less concern about the principals‘ capacity to select and hire the best applicant for their schools‘ population, especially if the principal has low teacher turnover rates (Edgerson, 2006). Hiring teachers who filled needed teacher-leadership roles can be viewed as typically adding strength to the collective capacity of the principal in the district (Gimbel, 2003).

Stable and consistent principal leadership contributes to the principal‘s

sense of efficacy (Baker & Cooper, 2005). A principal‘s commitment to directions established by the district, and confidence in being able to pursue them successfully, are significantly eroded by frequent teacher turnover (Hallinger, 2005). Therefore, it is recommended that school districts‘ human resources confer with and allow principals of high-achieving schools to maintain their freedom to hire staff within board policy guidelines. It is important not only to hire instructionally strong teachers, but also to retain those teachers at the campus level.

2. There is a relationship between high-achieving principals‘ positive

perception of their influence on curriculum issues and curricular guidelines and a corresponding perception of principals at low-achieving schools that they do not have significant influence on curriculum issues.

Course offerings are directly associated with the academic objectives of a school. Moreover, schools that offer a wider variety of courses, including more college readiness courses, generally have higher overall high school graduation rates along with increased college enrollment by their graduates (National


22

Postsecondary Education Cooperative, 2007). This is an important finding because urban schools continue to struggle with high dropout rates and a dwindling percent of their graduates enrolling in colleges and universities. Furthermore, urban schools are generally less likely to offer advance placement (AP) courses that will prepare students to be successful in college (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).

This finding raises the questions if principals at urban schools do have an

influence on course offering at their schools, is the emphasis being placed on traditional high school curriculum instead of college preparation efforts? The selection of which courses a school offers is determined by the state education agencies and legislative guidelines.

At the elementary level, most of the courses are basically identical across

school districts; however, academic course selections and electives begin to change at the middle and high school levels. It is here that the principal has much more autonomy in determining which courses will be offered, abandoned or added to the master schedule. Strong instructional leaders understand that the master schedule is a political document and often determines the futures for students on the campus (Quarterman, 2008). Offering AP courses, flexible course scheduling, or high school electives are the purview of the principal. Deleting a theater arts course at a low-performing school and replacing it with another section of Language Arts or Algebra underscores the power of the principal to support course offerings based on student‘s performance data. Adding dual credit courses at the high school level, which can be transferred to college credits, softens the impact of the first year of matriculation for students in college (Quarterman, 2008). Parents of high-achieving students become increasingly involved in their child‘s courses during their high school years, where every course counts for credit (National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, 2007). Principals must have a clear understanding of the legislative guidelines, school district curriculum and course offerings, Advanced Placement Courses, Pre-International Baccalaureate courses, and the importance of student readiness for college. If principals in low-achieving schools do not have the same self-efficacy regarding college preparedness for their students, then students may not have access to the same opportunities as their counterparts.

Safety and security issues remain important issues with urban school

campuses (Sheldon & Owens, 2009). Teachers appreciate principals who implement and enforce strong discipline policies. This leads us to the third important finding of the study, the principals‘ perceived influence on school discipline.

3. Principals at both high- and low-achieving schools believe they

have control over discipline issues at their schools.


23

Providing resources in training teachers, students, and parents can assist

principals in their efforts to reduce the need for administrative intervention for students. No school can become an effective school or move toward school improvement if unruly student behavior interferes with teacher instructional actions (Sheldon & Owens, 2009). Teachers expect principals to have control over the discipline of unmanageable students. They expect backup from the administration so they can teach unrestrained by excessive time wasted on behavior issues.

The fourth finding includes the area of funding.

4. Principals at low- achieving schools tend to have a greater influence on the disbursement of funds than principals at high-achieving schools have.

Discretionary funds from the school district, categorical funds (i.e., Title I, II, III, Compensatory, etc.) quite often allow the principal to budget the monies that best suit the needs of the campus (Hoy, 2008). Usually in urban school districts, the federal Title funds are the primary means of ―leveling the playing field‖ for poor students (Lunenburg, 2008). It is not surprising that principals in high-achieving schools do not have many students who live on or below the poverty line. These schools depend on parent assistance, parent-teacher organizations, and business resources to fill in the gaps for students.

Implications for Policy and Practice

Five implications for policy and practice emerged from this research.

1. Principal preparation training in the area of budgeting, master course building, and funding can reduce frustration levels of principals who are leading in high poverty, crime-ridden urban schools neighborhoods. District leaders need to find new ways of preparing future principals to work in schools that are associated with many environmental and social ills. The assistant principals who are preparing to become principals should be mentored and guided by successful principals while on the job, not just theoretically.

2. Instructional leadership must become a core skill for future leaders, especially in urban and poor school districts. Training future principals in supervision practices that are developmental in nature will enhance the both the teacher and the student in their effectiveness.


24

3. Understanding the importance of having a safe and orderly

environment will assist principals at high-and low-performing schools in achieving improved academic achievement. Districts must train future principals in discipline models that work for low-performing schools. Using the local police force in training principals and teachers on how to identify gang-related behaviors can reduce the incidences of criminal activity on a campus.

4. School districts should develop a strong program on training all

future principals in effective, efficient use of monies to implement the Campus Improvement Plan. Principal efficacy is bolstered when the campus principal has a clear understanding of how dollars and student achievement are related.

5. As instructional leaders, principals at low-achieving schools should

be supported in learning how to influence curricular guideline selection for their students, especially in preparing students to be college (community college or university) and work force ready.

It is not merely enough to hire a person to lead a school and hope for the

best; it is incumbent upon all stakeholders to support the personal in charge of leading our schools to success through effective school practices and school improvement processes. Districts have expectations of principals. These expectations can be taught and mentored for success. Principals must have a strong, comprehensive knowledge base of administrative skills that will allow students to achieve their maximum potential. Principal leadership, effectively managed and supported, can make any school become a place of hope and growth within the community.


25

References Baker, B. & Cooper, B. (2005). Do principals with stronger academic

backgrounds hire better teachers? Policy Implications for Improving High-Poverty Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 449-479. doi:10.1177/0013161X04269609.

Banks, J. (1989). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J. Banks & C. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Barth, R. S. (2001). Learning by heart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Blasé, J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teacher's

perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 24(4), 589-610. Bloom, C. M. & Erlandson, D. A. (2003). African American women principals in

urban schools: Realities, (re)constructions and resolutions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 339-369.

Cole-Henderson, B. (2000). Organizational characteristics of schools that successfully serve low-income urban African American students. Journal of Education for Students Placed At-Risk, 5(1 &2), 77-91.

Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 453. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Edgerson, D. & Kritsonis, W. (2006). Analysis of the influence of principal-teacher relationships on student academic achievement: A national focus. National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 1 (1) 1-5.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective Schools for the Urban Poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Glickman, C. (1987). Good and /or effective schools: What do we want? Kappan, 68(8), 622-624.

Glickman, C. (2010). SuperVision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (8th ed.). New York: Pearson.

Gimbel, P. (2003). Solutions for promoting principal-teacher trust. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Goertz, M. E. (2001). Refining government roles in an era of standard-based reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1),62-55.

Gordon, S. P. (2002). The good school. Florida Journal of Educational Leadership, 1(2), 13-15.

Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. College of Management, Mahidol University, Thailand.

Hoy, W. K. & Miskel, C. G. (Eds.). (2008). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Jeffrey, T. (2007). School leadership that works: From research to results. Roeper Review, 29(4), 285.


26

Joyce, B. (1991). The doors to school improvement. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 59-62.

LaPointe, M. & Davis, S. (2006). Effective schools require effective principals. Leadership, 36(1), 16.

Leana, C. R. & Frits, K. P. (2006). Social capital and organizational performance: evidence from urban public schools. Organizational Science, 17(3), 353-366.

Lewis, K., Lippett, R., & White, R. K. (1989). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created ‗social climates‘. Journal of Social Psychology (10), 271-299.

Lezotte, L. & Jacoby, B. (1990). The School Improvement Process Based on Effective Schools Research: A Guide. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products

Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S.E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Documents/Learning-from-Leadership-Investigating-Links-Final-Report.pdf

Lunenburg, F. C. & Orstein, A. C. (2008). Educational administration: Concepts and practices (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson.

Marzano, R. & Kendall, J., (1996) The Fall and Rise of Standards-Based Education. Arlington, VA and Aurora, CO: National Association of State Boards of Education & Mid-Continent Regional Educational Lab.

McEwan, E (2003). 7 steps to effective instructional leadership. Thousand Oak, CA: Corwin Press.

Murphy, J. (1992). Effective schools: Legacy and future directions. In D. Reynolds and P. Cuttance (Eds.), School effectiveness: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 164-170). London: Cassell.

National Center for Education Statistics (2002). Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS: 2002) http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/els2002/

National Center for Education Statistics (1998). Annual report on school safety http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/AnnSchoolRept98/natper.html

National Commission of Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: An imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from: http://datacenter.spps.org/sites/2259653e-ffb3-45ba-8fd6-04a024ecf7a4/uploads/SOTW_A_Nation_at_Risk_1983.pdf

National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. Deciding on Postsecondary Education: Final Report (NPEC 2008–850), prepared by Keith MacAllum, Denise M. Glover, Barbara Queen, and Angela Riggs. Washington, DC: Author.

National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2002). Standards for advanced programs in educational leadership for principals, superintendents, curriculum directors, and Supervisors. Austin, TX: Author

http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Documents/Learning-from-Leadership-Investigating-Links-Final-Report.pdf



http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/els2002/

http://datacenter.spps.org/sites/2259653e-ffb3-45ba-8fd6-04a024ecf7a4/uploads/SOTW_A_Nation_at_Risk_1983.pdf

http://datacenter.spps.org/sites/2259653e-ffb3-45ba-8fd6-04a024ecf7a4/uploads/SOTW_A_Nation_at_Risk_1983.pdf


27

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002). Retrieved on May 29, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

Owens, E.W., Johnson, J. & Perry-Bailey, D. (2008). ACP teachers‘ perceptions on student learning. The National Journal of Urban Education & Practice 1 (3), 150-158.

Owens, E. & Song, H. (2009). The new changing faces of urban teachers and their emerging beliefs. Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research 2009-Yearbook, 14-28.

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 427-452

Quarterman, J. (2008, December). An assessment of barriers and strategies for recruitment and retention of a diverse graduate student population. College Student Journal, 42(4), 947-967.

Reyes, A. (2006). Discipline, achievement, and race: Is zero tolerance the answer? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Seldom, A. & Owens, E. (2009). An examination of public school safety measures across geographic settings. The High School Journal for Health 79 (1), 24-29.

Schmoker, M. (2002). Up and away. Journal of Staff Development, 23(2), 1-8. Spillane, J. P., Hallett, T. & Diamond, J. B. (2003). Forms of capital and the

construction of leadership: Leadership in urban elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 76(1), 1-17.

Taylor, B. (2002). The effective schools process: Alive and well. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), 375.

Taylor, B.M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). The CIERA school change framework; An evidence-based approach to professional development and school reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 2-32.

The National Partnership for Teaching in At-Risk Schools (2005). Qualified teachers for at-risk school. Retrieve from: http://www.ecs.org/html/projectspartners/NPTARS/npreport.asp

Tyler, R. W. (1987). Education reforms. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(4), 277-280. U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Educational attainment in the United States: 2007.

www.ensus.gov. Waxman, H., & Padron, Y. (1995). Improving the quality of classroom instruction

for students at risk of failure in urban schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(2), 44-65.

Wheelan, S., & Kesselring, J. (2005). Link between faculty group development and elementary student performance on standardized tests. Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 323-330.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

http://www.ensus.gov/


28

Author: Emiel W. Owens, Jr. Ed.D Texas Southern University Associate Professor/Assessment Coordinator For the College of Education Dept. of Educational Administration and Foundations College of Education Texas Southern University, 3100 Cleburne Street, Rod Paige Building room 208, Houston, TX 77004 Phone: 713-313-4274 ; Fax: 713-313-4309 ; Email: [email protected] Area of Specialization: Educational Research and Statistics Co-Author: Collette M. Bloom, Ed.D Texas Southern University Associate Professor Dept. of Educational Administration and Foundations College of Education Texas Southern University, 3100 Cleburne Street, Rod Paige Building room 216, Houston, TX 77004 Phone: 713-313-1317 ; Fax: 713-313-4309 ; Email: [email protected] Area of Specialization: Educational Administration Co-Author: Patricia A. Smith, Ed.D. Prairie View A & M University Assistant Professor/Interim Director of Student Teaching Prairie View A & M University, Whitlowe R. Green College of Education, P.O Box 519; MS 2430, Prairie View, TX 77446 Phone: 936-261-3425; Fax: 936-261-3615; Email: [email protected] Area of Specialization: School Administration and Leadership


29

Troops-to-Teachers: Are They One Answer to Staffing Effective Schools?

Leslie S. Kaplan, Ed.D.

School Administrator (Retired)/Education Writer Newport News, Virginia

William A. Owings, Ed.D.

Professor of Educational Leadership Old Dominion University

Abstract

Many factors make it difficult to staff high-poverty schools with highly

effective teachers and principals. As a result, these schools tend to have a regular turnover of low-experience teachers and administrators, compounding the challenges for low-performing students. Research suggests that retired military personnel who become educators through Troops-to-Teachers funding may offer a cadre of capable teachers and administrators who choose to work in high-poverty schools, whose professional practice demonstrates several correlates of effective schools, whose students out-achieve peers working with teachers of similar years of teaching experience, and who evidence highly competent instructional leadership.

Key words: High poverty schools, principal effectiveness, teacher

effectiveness, troops-to-teachers

Introduction

About 40 years ago, the Effective Schools Movement captured educational headlines by identifying high-poverty, high-minority schools which out-achieved schools with similar student populations. Scholars identified seven correlates which anchored these academically-achieving cultures (Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Edmonds, 1979; Edmonds, 1982; Heck, 2000; Heck, 2005; Levine, 1990; Lezotte, 2001; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Rotter, Maugham, Mortimore, Ouston & Smith, 1979; Scheerens & Bosker, 1997).

Today, high-poverty schools are those where 76–100 percent of students are eligible for free and reduced-price lunches. Using this definition, 20% of public elementary schools and 9% of public secondary schools in the United States are high-poverty, educating approximately 6 million elementary and 1 million secondary school students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010a). Generally, students in high-poverty schools are achieving well below


30

peers from low-poverty schools. For example, the 2009 NAEP reading assessment average score for 8th-graders at high-poverty schools was 34 points lower than the score for 8th-graders at low-poverty schools. Similarly, the 2009 NAEP mathematics assessment average score for 8th-graders at high-poverty schools was 38 points lower than the score for those at low-poverty schools (Kerachsky, 2010; National Center for Education Statistics, 2010b, 2010c). Looking at later outcomes at the end of secondary school, in 2008, about 68% of 12th-graders in high-poverty schools and 91% of 12th-graders in low-poverty schools graduated with a diploma (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010d).

For a variety of reasons, school districts have major difficulties staffing high-poverty schools with experienced and capable teachers and administrators (Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2008; Clodfelter, Ladd, Vigdor, & Wheeler, 2007; Fuller & Young, 2009; Fuller, Young, & Baker, 2007; Goldhaber, Choi, & Cramer, 2007; Horng, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2010; Imazeki & Goe, 2009; Lankford, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2002; Roza & Hill, 2004; Scafidi, Sjoquist, & Stinebrickner, 2008). Likewise, when educators have the choice of where to work, they tend to choose less challenging, more highly-resourced schools (Betts, Rueben, & Danenberg, 2000; Bohrnstedt & Stecher, 1999; Feng, 2006; Gates, Guarino, Santibanez, Brown, Ghosh-Dastidar, & Chung, 2004; Gates, Ringel, Santibanez, Guarino, Ghosh-Dastidar & Brown, 2006; Hanushek, Kain & Rivkin, 2004; Lankford, 1999; Horng, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2010). This continual turnover leaves high-poverty schools without the leadership, faculty, or academic climate needed to support learning for all students.

A contemporary educational resource – retired career military officers

who become classroom teachers and school administrators – may be a cohort of capable educators who are choosing to work in high-poverty schools. Empirical findings from three recent national and regional studies on Troops-to-Teachers (TTT) provides evidence that this group demonstrates the effective schools correlates of a clear mission focused on student learning, a safe and orderly learning environment, strong instructional leadership, frequent monitoring of academic progress, and enhanced communications among home, school, and community (Owings, Kaplan, & Chappel, 2010; Owings, Kaplan, Nunnery, Marzano, Myron, & Blackburn, 2005, 2006; Nunnery, Kaplan, Owings, & Pribesh, 2009; Nunnery, Owings, Kaplan, & Pribesh, 2008). This educational cohort may provide one answer to staffing effective schools.

This article will describe the myriad difficulties in staffing high-poverty

schools with high quality teachers and administrators, describe the Troops-to-Teachers‘ profile, briefly explain the three studies which generated these positive findings, and argue that their performance largely in high-poverty, high-


31

minority schools enacts several effective schools correlates in ways that benefit students, teachers, and the community. Staffing Concerns in High-Poverty, High-Minority Schools

Creating an achievement-oriented school culture requires a strong principal and a stable faculty of competent teachers working together and with students over time. Studies consistently affirm that there is great variation among teachers, and the quality of the classroom teacher is the most important school factor in predicting student achievement. This topic is extensively explored elsewhere (Archer, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Darling-Hammond, Berry, & Thoreson, 2001; Ferguson, 1998; Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Goe & Stickler, 2008; Goldhaber, 2002; Goldhaber, Brewer, & Anderson, 1999; Greenwald Hedges, & Laine, 1996; Hanushek, 1992; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 1998; Hanushek & Rivkin, 2003; Haycock & Huang, 2001; Kaplan & Owings, 2003; Rivkin, Hanushek & Kain, 2005; Sanders & Horn, 1995; Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997). On average, students with a teacher in the top quartile of the talent pool achieve at levels corresponding to an additional two or three months of instruction per year, compared with peers who have a teacher in the bottom quartile (Miller & Chait, 2008).

Likewise, studies confirm the ―measurable though indirect effect‖ that

outstanding principals have on school effectiveness and student achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 2000), second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that influence student outcomes, and accounting for about one-quarter of the total school effects on student learning (Leithwood, et al, 2004; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Additional researchers agree that principals significantly impact student development and other school outcomes (Goldhaber, 2007; Hallinger & Heck, 2000; Heck, Larsen, & Marcoulides, 1990; Hess, 1998; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008; Levine & Lezotte, 1990; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008; Sammons, Hillman, & Mortimore, 1995; Schnur, 2002).

Given these findings about the importance of skillful educators to

children‘s learning and future life options, it is reasonable to assume that highly effective teachers and principals would be essential staff for high-needs, low-achieving schools. Yet evidence suggests that these most challenging schools are those with the greatest difficulty recruiting and retaining these able educators. Student Demographics and Disparities in Educator Talent

While equal educational opportunity requires that the quality of schooling

provided to students be similar across schools, scholarly investigations reliably find that high-poverty, high-minority schools and low-achieving, non-white


32

students – particularly in urban areas – tend to have the least experienced and lesser skilled teachers (Clodfelter, Ladd & Vigdor, 2005; Goldhaber, Choi, & Cramer, 2007; Iatarola & Stiefel, 2003; Imazeki & Goe, 2009; Lankford, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2002; Presley, White & Gong, 2005; Roza & Hill, 2004; Rubenstein, Schwartz, & Stiefel, 2006; Scafidi, Sjoquist, & Stinebrickner, 2008) and lower student achievement (Esch, et al, 2005; Goe, 2002). Likewise, principals in high-poverty, low-performing schools tend to be the least experienced and least able principals than those at more affluent schools (Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2009; Clodfelter, Ladd, Vigdor, & Wheeler, 2007; Fuller & Young, 2007; Horng, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2010; Roza, 2003).

Debate exists about the causal relationship between educator characteristics and student achievement. While not all novice teachers are less capable than their more experienced peers, some research suggests that teacher experience beyond the first few years does not consistently predict student achievement (Betts, Zau, & Rice, 2003; Carr, 2006; Harbison & Hanushek, 1992; Tennessee Department of Education, 2007). Research on teacher experience has shown that teachers tend to improve in their ability to contribute to student achievement growth during their first five years of teaching (Cavalluzzo, 2004; Clodfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2005; Hanushek, Kain, O‘Brien, & Rivkin, 2005; Kane, Rockoff, & Staiger, 2006; Rice, 2003; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2000; Rockoff, 2004). Research on principal experience and student achievement shows similar findings (Clodfelter, Ladd, Vigdor, & Wheeler, 2007; Fuller & Young, 2007). Therefore, closing achievement gaps between students in high- and low-poverty schools depends in part on ensuring that low-performing schools have equal access to highly quality, experienced teachers and principals. Causes of the Educator Quality Gap in High-Poverty Schools

When given a choice of where to work, however, most teachers and

principals tend not to choose high-poverty schools. Inequitable fiscal practices, local factors, challenging working conditions, poor human resource procedures, and individual preferences present important obstacles to staffing high-poverty schools with effective educators.

Fiscal practices. One 2006 investigation of spending patterns in dozens of

school districts in 20 states found two major models. First, school districts spent less money on salaries in high-poverty schools than in low-poverty schools within the same district. Second, districts assign a larger share of unrestricted funds to low-poverty schools (Roza, 2006). This pattern appears in other studies (Berne & Stiefel, 1994; Rubenstein, 1998; Stiefel, Rubenstein & Berne, 1998). Likewise, a 2006 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute asserts that ―even within school districts, there are often vast disparities between schools – disparities that generally favor schools with savvier leaders and wealthier


33

parents‖ (Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2006, p. 2). Even with increases in spending equity within states (Evans, Murray, & Schwab, 1997), substantial differences remain across schools in teachers‘ qualifications. In other words, schools in affluent districts typically have the resources to recruit and retain experienced, top-talent educators while schools in high-poverty districts do not.

District and neighborhood factors. School district and neighborhood factors

also play a role in producing the educator talent disparity. It is possible that different types of schools hire different types of teachers, reflecting their parents‘ preferences (Bayer, McMillan, & Rueben, 2004; Weiher & Tedin, 2002). For example, minority parents may prefer their children to have minority peers and teachers (who may have attended less selective colleges). Similarly, schools vary in the political power they exert within school districts, and certain parent cohorts may refuse to accept low-quality educators (Bridges, 1996). Also, teacher union contracts and regulations allow teachers with seniority the right to transfer to more desirable schools, which makes it difficult for low-performing schools to retain experienced and licensed teachers. Likewise, a uniform pay scale makes it difficult to hire licensed or experienced teachers to work in poorly performing schools (Iatarola & Stiefel, 2003).

Human resources procedures. Districts differ in the efficiency of their hiring

practices or in the aggressiveness in recruiting and hiring to bring in higher quality teaching staffs (Pflaum & Abramson, 1990; Ballou & Podugrsky, 1997). One study of four ―hard-to-staff‖ urban districts found that these districts actually received large numbers of applications, but their later hiring timelines caused them to miss out on many of the top candidates (Levin & Quinn, 2003). Similarly, a study of teacher hiring practices in four states found that more than one-third of new teachers in California and Florida were hired after the school year began (Liu & Johnson, 2003). Viewing the situation in another way, a national study found that district superintendents sought principal candidates with broad leadership experience (i.e., leading professional colleagues, skills in conflict resolution and managing competing interests) while human resource officials tended to seek principal candidates with a traditional background in education (Roza, 2003). Practices such as these tend to exclude potentially talented but non-traditional educators from the candidate pool.

Educator preferences. Educator preferences also impact school staffing.

Research identifies the combination of compensation and working conditions in high-poverty schools as less attractive than that available in more affluent schools (Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2008; Clodfelter, Ladd, Vigdor, & Wheeler, 2007). Substantial data show that teachers prefer to work for school districts with higher starting teacher wages relative to other occupations (Baugh & Stone, 1982; Brewer, 1996; Dolton & van der Klaaw, 1999; Hanushek & Pace, 1995; Mont & Rees, 1996; Stinebrickner, 2000; Thebald & Gritz, 1996). Likewise, both teachers


34

and principals tend to gravitate to schools that are easier to work in and run: schools serving higher income populations, more White and higher-achieving students, and more desirable work environments (i.e., better administrative and mentor support, more autonomy, lower class size, preparation time, attractive and well-maintained facilities, higher socioeconomic status student body) (Betts, Rueben, & Danenberg, 2000; Bohrnstedt & Stecher, 1999; Feng, 2006; Gates et al, 2006; Hanushek, Kain & Rivkin, 2004; Lankford, 1999; Horng, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2010). For instance, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff (2002) found that New York teachers who move across district boundaries tend to leave schools where the proportion of poor and non-white students is about 75% to 100% greater than in the schools to which they transfer; their classes are about two students smaller; and their salaries are 12% to 22% higher in their new district that they would have been had they remained in their original district. In this context, student demographics may be proxies for working conditions when educators express their preference for schools (Horng, Kalogrides, & Loeg, 2010; Horng, 2009; Ingersoll, 2001).

Then too, more qualified teachers and principals are more likely to take

jobs near where they live (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005). While experienced and competent teachers and principals tend to fill

vacancies in schools with relatively advantaged student populations, individuals with no prior teaching or principal experience tend to fill vacancies in schools with harder to serve populations.

The “Revolving Door” Weakens School Effectiveness

Teacher and principal retention are closely linked. Data show that

principal and teacher turnover in high-poverty schools are similar; the high-poverty schools have the highest turnover rates (Clodfelter, Ladd, Vigdor, & Wheeler, 2007; Clodfelter, Ladd, Vigdor & Diaz, 2004). Frequently, the newcomers transfer to another school as soon as they gain enough classroom or building experience to make them attractive candidates for wealthier districts. The result is a ―revolving door‖ of novice teachers and principals leaving high- poverty schools and other novice educators replacing them. This continual turnover weakens the schools‘ stability and inhibits the growth of a strong academic culture, impairing its ability to develop a coherent educational program and provide consistent academic expectations and support from year to year.

Any school reform effort relies on principals‘ efforts to create a shared

school vision that focuses on implementing improvement efforts over several years (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Heck & Hallinger, 1999; Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000). Identifying and articulating school vision and goals,


35

effectively allocating resources and their development, or organizational structures to support instruction and learning require a sustained effort which principal turnover clearly derails. The available evidence suggests that principals must be in place at least five years for the full implementation of a large-scale change effort (Fullan, 1991; McAdams, 1997).

Similarly, effective principals are able to provide school environments

more conducive to learning and may be more successful than their less effective colleagues in attracting, supporting, and keeping high quality teachers (Leithwood, et al, 2004). One North Carolina study found that a principal‘s additional year of tenure in a school predicts a reduction of teacher turnover at elementary, middle, and high schools (Clodfelter, Ladd, Vigdor & Wheeler, 2007). Additionally, as with teacher turnover, principal turnover brings financial costs to a school district which then must spend resources on recruiting, hiring, and training a new principal as well as losing their investment in building the original principal‘s capacity. This direct expense increases the costs associated with greater teacher and principal turnover and the associated lower student achievement.

In sum, the research cited suggests that low-income students are more likely to attend a school headed and taught by a novice educator with less average experience as compared to their more advantaged peers. Educators who transfer tend to move to schools with lower concentrations of low-income students. Given the teacher and principal labor market realities, it appears difficult for high-poverty, low-achieving schools to attract and retain effective and experienced teachers and principals. Troops-to-Teachers as Staff for Effective Schools In contrast, retired military personnel who become educators through Troops-to-Teachers (TTT) funding provide an alternate ethos to these data. Bringing the maturity gained in life and first-career experiences, many Troops teachers choose to work in high-needs schools. What is more, they demonstrate empirically-validated instructional and classroom management skills (Owings, et al, 2005, 2006); and show evidence of their students‘ increased achievement as compared with students from teachers with similar years of teaching experience (Nunnery et al. 2008; Nunnery et al. 2009). Likewise, Troops teachers who become school administrators are overwhelmingly judged to be more effective instructional leaders than are other administrators with similar years of education experience (Owings, et al., 2010). Combined with the fact that over 80% of these teachers intend to remain in teaching (Owings et al., 2005, 2006), results suggest that TTTs can provide a stable, high quality cadre of certified teachers who employ research-based instructional practices and strong


36

classroom management skills and principals with strong instructional leadership skills to our neediest students. Defining Troops-to-Teachers

In 1994, the Department of Defense established Troops-to-Teachers

funding to help improve public school education by recruiting, preparing, and supporting former members of the U.S. military services to be teachers in high poverty schools (Troops-to-Teachers Program, 2010). Congress passed the Troops-to-Teachers Act in 1999. Elementary and secondary teaching applicants are required to have a baccalaureate or advanced degree from an accredited higher education institution. Candidates agreeing to become highly qualified teachers and accept full-time employment as an elementary or secondary teacher or vocational or technical teacher for not less than three school years in a high-need school (at least 50%of enrolled students coming from low-income families and had a large percentage of students with disabilities) become eligible to receive a $10,000 bonus.

Since then, the program has placed more than 11,000 former troops into

public schools nationwide (Miles, 2008). Almost half the program's teachers work in high schools, 30% in middle schools and about 20% in elementary schools (Miles, 2008).

Moreover, TTTs teach in high-poverty schools, teach high-demand

subjects (math, science, special education), plan to remain in teaching, and increase the teaching pool‘s diversity (Feistritzer, 2005; Feistritzer & Haar, 2007; Owings et al., 2005, 2006).

TTT Studies Briefly Described

Between 2005 and 2010, the authors and colleagues conducted three

national or regional studies focusing on retired military officers who entered education through Troops-to-Teachers funding and their impact on student achievement. Data from these studies support this cohort as effective classroom instructors, classroom managers, communicators, and educational leaders.

In 2005, the first study surveyed a sample of 2,103 TTTs and their

principals from 49 states and the District of Columbia to gather their perceptions of TTTs‘ classroom and school-wide effectiveness and their teacher preparation. Investigators found that principals overwhelmingly (over 90%) reported that TTTs are more effective in classroom instruction and classroom management/student discipline and 89.5% stated that TTTs have more positive impact on student achievement than do traditionally prepared teachers of similar experience. The Troops teachers agree that their preparation program equipped


37

them to use the research-based instructional practices associated with increased student achievement and effective classroom management behaviors (Owings et al., 2005, 2006).

In 2008, the second study examined approximately 6,500 Florida K-12

students‘ reading and mathematics performance when taught by a sample of teachers who obtained their teaching credentials through the Troops-to-Teachers program. Results indicated that Troops-to-Teachers‘ students achieved substantially and statistically significantly higher scores in both Reading and Mathematics when compared with teachers matched by subject and years of teaching experience (Nunnery et al., 2008; Nunnery et al., 2009).

In 2009-2010, the third study surveyed the immediate supervisors of a

national sample of TTTs who have become school administrators about the Troops teachers‘ effectiveness as instructional leaders. Study results find the supervisors overwhelmingly (91% and above) rate TTTs who have become school administrators as either Proficient or Distinguished instructional leaders as compared with administrators who have similar years of education experience (Owings, et al., 2010).

TTT Demographics

Male and minority. As noted in Table 1, Troops teachers appear to be 83.3%

male and about 39% minority – as compared to 49.3% male (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009) and 35% minority (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008) in the U.S. as a whole. More specifically, among TTTs, 59.2% are White, Non-Latino, 26.4% are African American, and 7.7% are Latino (Owings et al., 2005, 2006) as compared with African Americans (13.6%) and Latinos (16%) in the 2010 U.S. population as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).

In the school context, the TTT demographic profile is more striking. At

34.1% (26.4% African American + 7.7% Latino), the percent of African American and Latino Troops-to-Teachers substantially add to the 14% of U.S. public school teachers who are members of racial or ethnic minorities (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009). They also contrast positively with the National Education Association survey that only 24.5% of the 3 million U.S. teachers in 2005 were men, a 40-year low (National Education Association, 2006).

Teach in high-poverty schools. Most Troops teachers teach in high-poverty

schools. About one-fifth (20.7%) teach in schools in which 51 to 75% of students are eligible for free or reduced price lunch and about one-third (33.2%) teach in schools in which more than 75% of students are eligible for free or reduced price lunch. Little more than one-third (34.9%) teach in majority White schools. Table 1 illustrates the student demographics where TTTs tend to teach. Also, about


38

30% teach in a medium-sized or inner city; and over 80% intend to remain in teaching (Owings et al., 2005, 2006). Table 1

Pupil Demographics of Schools Employing TTT Teachers Approximately what percentage of students in your school are…

0 to 10%

11 to 25%

26 to 50%

51 to 75%

76 to 90%

91+%

Free or reduced-price lunch eligible

28.1 6.3 11.8 20.7 19.7 13.5

African-American 11.8 38.4 17.7 18.7 7.3 5.9 Asian/Pacific Islander 3.3 91.4 4.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 Caucasian 20.0 22.3 14.3 22.0 12.9 8.5 Latino 9.5 49.7 16.7 13.8 5.8 4.5 Native American 3.7 91.7 2.6 0.6 0.1 1.3 Source: Owings, Kaplan, Nunnery, Marzano, Myran, & Blackburn, 2005, p. 38.

Teach in areas of critical national need. In addition, 55.3% of Troops to Teachers are filling teaching positions in areas of critical national need: special education, mathematics, natural science, foreign languages, and English as a Second Language (Table 2). About 1 in 7 have taken on substantial additional roles in the schools in which they serve, including coaching and administration (Owings et al., 2005, 2006).

Table 2

Percentage of Respondents Teaching by Subject Area Subject Area n Percentage Elementary Education 111 11.7% Special Education 242 25.6% Arts and Music 11 1.2% English and Language Arts 48 5.1% English as a Second Language 12 1.3% Foreign Languages 11 1.2% Health Education 11 1.2% Mathematics and Computer Science

147 15.6%

Natural Sciences 110 11.6% Social Sciences 117 12.4% Vocational/Technical Education

73 7.7%

Military Science/ROTC 25 2.6% Other 27 2.9% Source: Owings, Kaplan, Nunnery, Myran, & Blackburn, 2005, p. 34.


39

Since education is their second career, TTTs‘ knowledge, perspective, and skills come impacted by their previous armed services‘ responsibilities and lifestyles. Their survey responses show that they perceive their military experiences helped prepare them for their new career in teaching in several ways, including: organization for time and resource management; discipline for self and students; working with diverse groups or populations; collaboration with colleagues; leadership skills; and motivational skills (Owings et al., 2005, 2006). TTTs and Effective Schools Correlates

In addition to providing capable and committed educators to staff high-needs schools, data from recent investigations strongly suggest that TTTs implement a blend of several effective schools correlates, including clear and focused mission on learning for all, a safe and orderly learning environment, frequent monitoring of progress, instructional leadership, and enhanced communication. Since the correlates overlap, the narrative will align TTTs‘ performance under three categories: a clear and focused mission on learning for all, a safe and orderly environment for learning, and instructional leadership.

A Clear and Focused Mission on Learning for All Today‘s school mission emphasizes teaching and learning an appropriate balance between higher-level learning and those more basic skills required for their mastery. The mission advocates learning for all, focusing on the ―learning‖ (what the student is doing and gaining) and the teachers‘ continuous professional growth. Results, not merely inputs, matter (Lezotte, 1991). In an effective school, first the principal and then other school leaders champion a clear and focused mission of what is possible, desirable, and intended. A clear and focused mission is powerful because it compels the organization to attend to what is really important and defines where it intends to go (Nanus, 2001). Mission creates meaning for everyone in the organization. It makes the world understandable by explaining why things are being done they way they are, why certain things are considered good and rewarded while others are not.

While the principal holds traditional responsibility for defining and articulating a focused mission for all students‘ learning, teachers are the essential agents who make a clear and focused mission work. With the desired end in mind, the teachers‘ job is to design, conduct, and continually assess learning activities for students that they find meaningful, relevant, connected to their prior knowledge, and able to apply in other contexts.


40

How well are TTTs fulfilling this mission to help all students learn? In designing the initial TTT study, the author worked with Robert J. Marzano (Marzano, 2003; Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock, 2001) to use items from his What Works in Schools: Translating Research Into Action (2003) in the study‘s survey instrument to determine whether – in the perceptions of principals and the Troops teachers – the TTTs were using research-based best instructional practices which have been empirically tied to measured student achievement. Marzano and associates had researched best instructional practices, determined the empirical effect size of different teaching practices on student achievement, and published the findings. Marzano confirmed that the resulting survey instruments maintained validity and reliability as well as the essence of his research findings. Table 3 provides a sample of the instructional practices surveyed.

Table 3 Sample of Research-based Instructional Practice Items on Survey This TTT teacher exhibits the following behavior to a greater degree than other teachers with similar years of experience: Begins their instructional units by presenting students with clear learning goals. Provides students with specific feedback on the extent to which they are accomplishing the learning goals. Recognizes students who are making observable progress toward the learning goals. Emphasizes the importance of effort with students Ends units by providing students with clear feedback on the learning goals. Prior to presenting new content, asking students questions that help them recall what they might already know about the content by providing direct links with previous knowledge or studies. Prior to presenting new content, provide students with direct links with previous knowledge or studies Assigning tasks that require students to compare and classify content Asks students to represent new content in nonlinguistic ways (e.g., mental image, picture, pictograph, graphic organizer, enactment.) Assigns in-class and homework tasks that require students to practice important skills and procedures. Keeps parents informed about students‘ academic and behavioral progress. Appears to deal with parents and community members more effectively. Source: Adapted from: Owings, Kaplan, Nunnery, Myran, & Blackburn, 2005, p. 40.


41

Additionally, several of the items in Table 3 address the frequent monitoring of student progress. In today‘s effective schools, measuring student growth shifts from reliance on summative, standardized norm-referenced tests and towards on-going formative measures of student mastery (Lezotte, 1991). Therefore, surveyed behaviors such as ―provides students with specific feedback on the extent to which they are accomplishing the learning goals,‖ ―ends units by providing students with clear feedback on the learning goals,‖ and ―recognizing students who are making progress towards learning goals‖ (Table 3) are examples of teachers using on-going assessments of student learning gains as instructional and motivational tools.

Likewise, TTTs exhibit enhanced communications. In contemporary effective schools, the parent-school relationship becomes an authentic partnership. Over 30 years of research show that family involvement is a powerful influence on student achievement (Epstein, 1995; Epstein, 2005; Henderson & Berla, 1994). Parental involvement is the most reliable predictor of academic achievement whether the child is in preschool or upper grades, whether or not the family is financially struggling or affluent, and whether or not the parents finished high school or earned graduate degrees (Henderson & Berla, 1994; Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Troops teachers demonstrate skills in enhanced communications. Principals responded to two questions about TTTs‘ home-school relations, ―appears to deal with parents and community members more effectively‖ and ―keeps parents informed about students‘ academic and behavioral progress.‖ About 90% of principals agree or strongly agree that TTTs are superior to other teachers with similar teaching experience in terms of working well with other teachers and staff and keeping parents informed about their child‘s academic and behavioral progress (Owings et al., 2005, 2006).

Principals report that TTTs demonstrated higher performance on 21 research-based instructional practices associated with increased student achievement (Owings et al., 2005, 2006). The strongest performance areas were ―emphasizing the importance of effort with students‖ (Agree = 93.3%), ―recognizing students who are making observable progress toward learning goals‖ (Agree = 90.4%), ―assigns tasks that require students to practice important skills and procedures‖ (Agree = 89.7%), ―asking questions that provide students with direct links to previous knowledge‖ (Agree = 88.3%), and ―providing students with direct feedback on the extent to which they are accomplishing learning goals‖ (Agree = 89.1%). This instructional effectiveness is especially notable because it frequently occurs in high-poverty schools.

What is more, evidence suggests that TTTs‘ effective classroom practices

actually support student learning. One 2009 study in Florida finds that students


42

of Troops teachers score significantly higher on K-12 Mathematics and Reading standardized tests than do students of comparable teachers with similar years of teaching experience (Nunnery et al. 2008; Nunnery et al., 2009).

The clear learning goals, on-going and specific feedback to students about

their learning progress, the recognition and celebration of student gains, the multiple activities in which students connect the new content with their prior learning to create personal meaning and relevance, and the occasions for students to apply their new learning in conceptual and nonlinguistic ways illustrate how TTTs translate a clear and focused mission into effective instructional practices. Safe and Orderly Learning Environment

Today‘s effective schools move beyond the absence of undesirable student behaviors, such as students fighting, to emphasize the presence of certain desirable behaviors. Now safe and orderly environment includes cooperative team learning, students helping each other, and all members of the school community showing respect and appreciation for human diversity and democratic values (Lezotte, 1991).

Many studies have singled out a safe and orderly environment as essential to academic achievement (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Grogger, 1997; Mayer, Hoy & Hannun, 1997; Mullens, Moore, & Ralph, 2000). Generally, research finds the more safe and orderly the school climate, the higher the students‘ math and reading achievement levels. A school characterized by a secure and organized environment is significantly related to less student fear, lower dropout rates, and higher student commitment (Hoy & Hannum, 1997). Classroom management is a key area where safe and orderly learning environment can be seen. Again, the authors used a survey with questions designed with Marzano (Marzano, 2003; Marzano et al., 2001) to use items from his What Works in Schools: Translating Research Into Action (2003). The final principals‘ survey had four classroom management questions (See Table 4).


43

Table 4 Classroom Management and Student Discipline This TTT teacher exhibits the following behavior to a greater degree than other teachers with similar years of experience: Has comprehensive and well-articulated rules and procedures for general classroom behavior, beginning and ending the period or day, transitions and interruptions, use of materials and equipment, group work, and seatwork. Uses specific disciplinary strategies that reinforce appropriate behavior and provide consequences for inappropriate behavior. Uses specific techniques to keep aware of problems or potential problems in their classrooms. Responds to inappropriate behaviors quickly and assertively. Uses specific techniques to maintain a healthy and emotional objectivity when dealing with student misbehavior. Source: Adapted from: Owings, Kaplan, Nunnery, Myran, & Blackburn, 2005, p. 42.

Principals rated TTTs as extremely effective in areas of classroom

management and student discipline relative to teachers with comparable years of education experience. As shown in Table 4, the overwhelming majority of administrators agreed or strongly agreed that TTTs were more effective in terms of having comprehensive and well-articulated rules for behavior (90.2%), responding to inappropriate behaviors quickly and assertively (90.1%), using specific strategies to reinforce appropriate behavior and provide consequences for inappropriate behavior (88.3%), using specific techniques to keep aware of problems or potential problems in the classroom (86.2%), and maintaining a healthy emotional objectivity when dealing with student misbehavior (87.8%) (Owings et al., 2005, 2006). Instructional Leadership Strong instructional leadership is an essential component of effective schools. ―Indeed, there are virtually no documented instances of troubled schools being turned around without interventions by a dynamic leader. Many other factors may contribute to such turnarounds, but leadership is the catalyst‖ (Leithwood et al., 2004, p. 7).

It is clear that principals have a profound influence and play a crucial role in shaping their schools‘ environments and instructional climate. This, in turn influences the quality of teaching and learning within them. While the research supports the view that the principal‘s impact on student achievement may be indirect, it is critical. The principal controls the most important factors affecting a school‘s teaching and instructional quality, including: attracting, selecting, and keeping outstanding teachers; working with the school community to establish a


44

common mission, instructional vision, and goals; creating a school culture grounded in collaboration and high expectations; facilitating continuous instructional improvement; finding fair, effective ways to improve or remove low-performing teachers; and producing excellent academic results for all students as gauged by external tests aligned with state academic standards. In addition, principals have increased responsibilities for traditional areas such as politics, security, public relations, finances, personnel, and technology (Kaplan, Owings, & Nunnery, 2005).

While authors vary widely about how leaders should improve

educational outcomes, they do not question the ability of principals to improve educational outcomes per se (Leithwood, Tomlinson, & Genge, 1996; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). It is clear that principals have a profound influence and play a crucial role in shaping their schools‘ environments and instructional climate. This, in turn influences the quality of teaching and learning within them.

Applying professionally-endorsed performance standards is one way to

assess principals‘ effectiveness. The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for principals (developed in 1996 and revised in 2008) are research-based standards which focus on indicators of knowledge, dispositions, and performances important to effective school leadership. The standards redefine school leadership from administrative and managerial to instructional leadership centering on enhancing teaching and learning and creating powerful learning environments (CCSSO, 1996, 2008; Murphy, 2005; Murphy & Shipman, 2002). The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) has scaffolded the ISLLC standards into their accreditation process for educational administration programs (Sanders, 2006). At present, all NCATE-Accredited principal preparation programs in the United States have adopted the ISLLC Standards (Fossey & Shoho, 2006; Murphy, 2005).

While the ISLLC Standards and Effective Schools Correlates were not

developed together and research has not defined the connections between the two conceptual frameworks, one would assume some relationship since both deal with leadership for learning in schools.

In 2009 – 2010, the third TTT study sampled Troops teachers who became schools administrators. A survey asked a supervisor to assess the Troops‘ principal on one of four proficiency levels (Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, Distinguished) using a research-validated Principal Quality Rubric based on the ISLLC standards (Kaplan et al., 2005; Owings, Kaplan, & Nunnery, 2005). Study findings show more that 91% of supervisors rate the TTT principals and assistant principals as Proficient or Distinguished on the six ISLLC standards as compared to administrators with similar years of education experience (Figure 1) (Owings,


45

et al., 2010). By these measures, TTTs who become school principals practice effective instructional leadership. Figure 1. Illustration of Responses to Troops teachers Who Have Become School Administrators by ISLLC Standard and Principal Quality Rubric Performance Scale

Conclusion

High-poverty schools tend to have difficulties establishing a stable and

committed cadre of highly effective teachers and administrators as compared to their more affluent counterparts. This lack of continuing educator talent further disadvantages students from low-income families. As a result, recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers and administrators have become popular policy strategies for improving student performance.

The quality differential between effective and ineffective teachers represents well over a third of the ―achievement gap‖ between students from low-income families and those from families with higher incomes (Miller & Chait, 2008). One may logically assume this to be true for principals as well. The research affirms that students‘ consistent assignment to high-quality teachers and school leaders can substantially lower the poverty-imposed barriers to realizing their academic success.

Individually and as a group, educators who enter the profession through

Troops-to-Teachers‘ funding express the desire to work in high-poverty schools, tend to work in high-poverty schools, show evidence of effective instructional


46

and classroom management practices, offer empirical data showing their students‘ out-achieving in Reading and Mathematics those peers who have teachers with similar years of teaching experience, and provide supervisors‘ reports of high levels of instructional leadership skills. As such, these findings suggest that Troops teacher educators may be one answer to the difficulties in staffing effective schools.


47

References Archer, J. (2002, April 3). Research: Focusing in on teachers. Education Week, 21 (29), 36-39. Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1997). Teacher pay and teacher quality. Kalamazoo,

MI: E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Baugh, W. H., & Stone, J. A. (1982). Mobility and wage equilibration in the

educator labor market. Economics of Education Review, 2(3), 253–274. Bayer, P., McMillan, R., & Rueben, K.S. (2004). What drives racial segregation?

New evidence using Census microdata. Journal of Urban Economics, 56 (3), 514-535.

Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1994). Measuring equity at the school level: The finance perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(4), 405–421. Betts, J.R., Zau, A.C., & Rice, L.A. (2003). Determinants of student achievement: New

evidence from San Diego. San Francisco, Public Policy Institute of California. Betts, J. R., Rueben, K. S., & Danenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes?

The distribution of school resources and student achievement in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.

Brewer, D. J. (1996). Career paths and quit decisions: Evidence from teaching. Journal of Labor Economics, 14(2) (April), 313–339.

Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Stecher, B. M. (Eds.) (1999).Class size reduction in California: Early evaluation findings, 1996–1998. Palo Alto: CSR Research Consortium, Year 1 Evaluation Report, American Institutes for Research.

Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). The draw of home: How teachers‘ preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24 (1), 113-132.

Branch, G.F., Hanushek, E.A., & Rivkin, S.G. (2008). Principal turnover and effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Economics Association. San Francisco, CA: January 3-5. Bridges, E. M. (1996). Evaluation for tenure and dismissal. In Millman, J. &

Darling-Hammond, L. ( Eds.), The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation (pp.147–157). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Brookover, W.B. & Lezotte, L.W. (1979). Changes in School Characteristics Coincident with Changes in Student Achievement. East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Urban Development.

Carr. M. (2006). The determinants of student achievement in Ohio’s public schools (Policy Report). Columbus, OH: Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions.

Cavalluzzo, L.C. (2004). Is national board certification an effective signal of teacher quality? (IPR Report No. 11204). Alexandria, VA.: The CNA Corporation.

Chubb, J.E. & Moe, T.M. (1990). Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute.


48

Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2005). Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review. 24 (4), 377–392. Clodfelter, C.T., Ladd, H.F., Vigdor, J.L., & Diaz, R.A. (2004). Do school

accountability systems make it more difficult for low performing schools to attract and retain high-quality teachers? Journal of Policy Analysis and

Management, 23 (2), 251 – 271. Clodfelter, C., Ladd, H.F., Vigdor, J. & Wheeler, J. (2007). High poverty schools

and the distribution of teachers and principals. Sanford Working Paper Series SAN-08. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University, Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy.

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008. As adopted by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.wallacefoundation.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/WF/Knowledge%20Center/Attachments/PDF/ISLLC%202008.pdf

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (1996). Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards for School Leaders. (Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved June 2002 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1. Darling-Hammond, L. Berry, B., & Thoreson, A. (2001). Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23 (1), 57-77. Dolton, P. J., & van der Klaaw, W. (1999). The turnover of teachers: A competing

risks explanation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 543–552. Edmonds, R. (1979, October). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership 37 (1), 15-23. Edmonds, R. R. (1982, December). Programs of school improvement: An

overview. Educational Leaders 40 (3): 4 – 11. Epstein, J. L. (2005, September). Developing and Sustaining Research-Based Programs of School, Family, and Community Partnerships. Summary of 5 Years

of NNPS Research. Johns Hopkins University, National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS).

Epstein, J. L. (1995, May). School/family/community partnerships. Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan 76 (9): 701-712.

Esch, C. E., Chang-Ross, C. M., Guha, R., Humphrey, D. C., Shields, P. M., Tiffany-Morales, J. D., Wechsler, M. E., and Woodworth, K. R. (2005). The status of the teaching profession 2005. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED491141.pdf

Evans, W. N., Murray, S.E., & Schwab, R.M. (1997). School houses, court houses and states houses After Serrano, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16 (1) 10-31.

http://www.wallacefoundation.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/WF/Knowledge

http://www.wallacefoundation.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/WF/Knowledge

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED491141.pdf


49

Feistritzer, C. E. (2005). Profile of Troops to Teachers. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Information. Feistritzer, C. E. & Haar, C. K. (2007). Research on alternative routes. Education research. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Alternative Certification. Retrieved from: http://www.teach- now.org/RESEARCH%20ABOUT%20ALTERNATE%20ROUTES.pdf Feng, L. (2006). Combating teacher shortages: Who leaves, moves, and why.

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

Ferguson, R. F. (1998). Teachers‘ perceptions and expectations and the black- white test score gap. In C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.), The black-white test score gap and can schools narrow the black-white test score gap? (pp. 273-374). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Ferguson, R.F., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). How and why money matters: An analysis of Alabama schools. In Ladd, H. (Ed.), Holding schools accountable. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Press. Fossey, R. & Shoho, A. (2006). Educational leadership preparation programs. In transition or crisis? Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 9 (3), 3 – 11. Fullan, M., with Steigelbauer, S. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change,

New York Teachers College Press. Fuller, E. & Young, M. (2009, Summer). Tenure and retention of newly hired

principals in Texas. Texas High School Project Leadership Initiative Issue Brief 1. Austin, TX: Department of Educational Administration, University Council for Educational Administration. Retrieved from: http://www.ucea.org/storage/principal/IB%201_Principal%20Tenure%20and%20Retention%20in%20Texas%20of%20Newly%20Hired%20Principals_10_8_09.pdf

Fuller, E J., Young, M.D. & Baker, B. (2007, April). The relationship between principal characteristics, principal turnover, teacher quality, and student Achievement. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.

Gates, S.M., Guarino, C., Santibanez, L., Brown, A., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., & Chung, C.H. (2004). Career paths of school administrators in North Carolina: Insights from an analysis of state data. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Gates, S. M., Ringel, J.S., Santibanez,L., Guarino, C., Ghosh-Dastidar, B. & Brown, A.. (2006). Mobility and turnover among school principals. Economics of Education Review 25 (3), 289-302.

Goe, L. (2002). Legislating equity: The distribution of emergency permit teachers in California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (2), 1-50.

Goe, L. & Stickler, L M. (2008, March). Teacher quality and student achievement: Making the most of recent research. (TQ Research and Policy Brief). Washington, D.C.: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mystery of good teaching: Surveying the evidence on

student achievement and teachers‘ characteristics. Education Next, 2(1), 50-55.

http://www.teach-/

http://www.teach-/

http://www.ucea.org/storage/principal/IB%201_Principal%20Tenure%20and

http://www.ucea.org/storage/principal/IB%201_Principal%20Tenure%20and


50

Goldhaber, D. (2007, December 4). Principal compensation: More research needed on

a promising reform. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/12/principal_compensation.html

Goldhaber, D., Brewer, D.J., & Anderson, D. (1999). A three-way error components analysis of educational productivity. Education Economics, 7(3),199-208.

Goldhaber, D., Choi, H.J. & Cramer, L. (2007). A descriptive analysis of the distribution of NBPTS-certified teachers in North Carolina. Economics of Education Review, 26 (2), 160-172.

Goldhaber, D., Gross, B & Player, D. (2007). Are public schools really losing their ‗best‘? Assessing the career transitions of teachers and their implications for the Quality of the teacher workforce. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center on Reinventing Public Education, CRPE Working Paper #2007_2. Retrieved from: http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/wp_crpe2_ttlosingbest_sept07.pdf

Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. & Laine, R. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Education Research, 66(3):361-96. Grogger, J. (1997). Local violence and educational attainment. The Journal of

Human Resources 32 (4): 659-692. Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. (2000, October). Exploring the principal‘s contribution to school effectiveness, 1980-1995. In Leadership for

Student Learning: Reinventing School Leadership for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: The Institute for Education Leadership.

Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal‘s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44. Hanushek, E.A. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal

of Political Economy, 100 (1), 84-117. Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J., O‘Brien, D.M. & Rivkin, S.G. (2005). The market for teacher

quality (NBER Working Paper No. 11154). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S.G. (1998). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Economic Research. Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S.G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers.

Journal of Human Resources 39(2):326-354. Hanushek, E. A., & Pace, R. R. (1995). Who chooses to teach (and why)?

Economics of Education Review, 14(2), 101–117. Hanushek, E.A., & Rivkin, S.G. (2003). How to improve the supply of high

quality teachers. In D. Ravich (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy 2004. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/12/principal_compensation.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/12/principal_compensation.html

http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/wp_crpe2_ttlosingbest_sept07.pdf

http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/wp_crpe2_ttlosingbest_sept07.pdf


51

Harbison, R.W. & Hanushek, E.A. (1992). Educational performance of the poor: Lessons from rural north Brazil. New York: Oxford University Press (for The World Bank).

Haycock, K. & Huang, S. (2001). Are today‘s high school graduates ready? Thinking K-16, 5 (1),10-12. Washington, D.C.: Education Trust. Heck, R. H. (2000). Examining the impact of school quality on school outcomes

and improvement: A value-added approach. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(4): 513-552.

Heck, R. H. (2005). Examining School Achievement over Time: A Multilevel, Multi-group Approach. In W.K. Hoy and C.G. Miskal (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Educational Policy and School Outcomes (pp. 1-28). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Heck, R. & Hallinger, P. (1999). Conceptual models, methodology, and methods forstudying school leadership. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore-Louis (Eds.), The 2nd

handbook of research in educational administration. San Francisco: McCutchan. Heck, R.H., Larsen, T.J., & Marcoulides, G.A. (1990). Instructional leadership

and school achievement: Validation of a casual model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26 (2), 94 – 125.

Henderson, A. T. & Berla, N. (Eds.). (1994). A New Generation of Evidence: The Family is Critical in Student Achievement. Washington, D.C.: National Committee for Citizens in Education.

Henderson, A. T. & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence. The Impact of School, Family and Community Connections on Student Achievement, Annual Synthesis 2002. Eric Document No. ED 474521. Austin, TX: Center of Family and Community Connections with Schools. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Hess, A. G. Jr. (1998, September). ―Strong Leadership is No. 1‖ Catalyst. Voices of School Reform. Chicago, Illinois.

Horng, E. L. 2009. Teacher tradeoffs: Disentangling teachers' preferences for working conditions and student demographics. American Educational Research Journal. 46(3):690-717.

Horng, E.L., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2010, March). Principal preferences and the uneven distribution of principals across schools. School Leadership Research Paper. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from: http://www.stanford.edu/group/irepp/slr/docs/Principal%20Preferences%20Reserach%20Paper%20%28final%29.pdf

Hoy, W.K., & Hannum, J.W. (1997). Middle school climate: An empirical assessment of organizational health and student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33 (3), 290-311.

Iatarola, P. & Stiefel, L. (2003). Intradistrict equity of public education resources and performance. Economics of Education Review. 22(1): 69–78.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/irepp/slr/docs/Principal%20Preferences%20Reser

http://www.stanford.edu/group/irepp/slr/docs/Principal%20Preferences%20Reser


52

Imazeki, J. & Goe, L. (2009). The distribution of highly qualified, experienced teachers: Challenges and opportunities. Teacher Quality Research & Policy Brief. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from: http://www.tqsource.org/publications/August2009Brief.pdf.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3): 499-534.

Kane, T.J., Rockoff, J.E., & Staiger, D.O. (2006). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/kane/nycfellowsmarch2006.pdf.

Kaplan, L.S. & Owings, W.A. (2003). The politics of teacher quality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9): 687-692. Kaplan, L. S, Owings, W. A., & Nunnery, J. (2005). Principal quality: A Virginia

study connecting Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards with student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89 (643), 28 – 44.

Kerachsky, S. (2010, May 27). Briefing on the condition of education 2010. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/commissioner/remarks2010/5_27_2010.asp

Lankford, H. (1999). A descriptive analysis of the New York State and New York City teaching force. Report prepared for the New York Supreme Court case Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. New York State.

Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Spring. 24(1): 37–62.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498–518.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leaders. School Leadership and Management, 28 (1), 27- 42.

Leithwood, K, Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, E. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation. Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principal and teacher leader effects: A

replication. School Leadership and Management, 20(4), 415–434. Leithwood, K., Tomlinson, D., & Genge, M. (1996). Transformational school

leadership. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 785-840). Dorrecht, NE: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Levin, J. & Quinn, M. (2003). Missed opportunities, How we keep high-quality teachers out of urban classrooms. New York, NY: The New Teacher Project. Levine, Daniel U. (1990). Update on effective schools: Findings and implications for research and practice. The Journal of Negro Education 59(4): 577-584.

http://www.tqsource.org/publications/August2009Brief.pdf

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/kane/nycfellowsmarch2006.pdf

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/kane/nycfellowsmarch2006.pdf


53

Levine, D. U., & Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development. Lezotte, Lawrence. (1991). Correlates of Effective Schools. The First and Second Generation. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools. Lezotte, Lawrence. (2001). Revolutionary and Evolutionary: The Effective Schools

Movement. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products Ltd. Liu, E. & Johnson, S.M. (2003). New teachers‘ experiences of hiring: Late, rushed,

and information poor. NGT Working Paper (Cambridge, MA: Project on the Next Generation of Teachers, 2003). Retrieved from: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/Liu_Johnson_NGT_Working_Paper.pdf.

Marzano, R.J. (2003). What Works in Schools. Translating Research into Action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.L., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom Instruction That Works. Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R.J., Waters, T, & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School Leadership That Works. From Research to Results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mayer, D.P., Hoy, W.K., & Hannun, J. (1997). Middle school climate: An empirical assessment of organizational health and student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly 33 (3): 290-311.

McAdams, R. P. (1997). A systems approach to school reform. Phi Delta Kappan,79(2): 138-142.

Miles, D. (2008, July 17). Troops to Teachers” translates military experience to classrooms. Ft. Meade, MD: American Forces Press Service. Retrieved from: http://www.retirees.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123106918. Miller, R. & Chait, R. (2008, December 2). Teacher turnover, tenure policies, and the

distribution of teacher quality. Can high-poverty schools catch a break? Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/teacher_attrition.html.

Mont, D., & Rees, D. I. (1996). The influence of classroom characteristics on high school teacher turnover. Economic Inquiry, 34, 152–167. Mullens, J.E., Moore, M.T., & Ralph, J. (2000). Monitoring School Quality: An

Indicator’s Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education: National Center for Education Statistics.

Murphy, J. (2005, September). Using the ISLLC Standards for school leaders at the state level to strengthen school administration. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of Education.

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/Liu_Johnson_NGT_Working_Paper.pdf

http://www.retirees.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123106918

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/teacher_attrition.html


54

Murphy, J. & Shipman, N. J. (2002). The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Story: A Brief Narrative,‖ in K. Hessel & J. Holloway, A Framework for School Leaders. Linking the ISLLC Standards to Practice. (pp. 4 – 9). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.

Nanus, B. (2001). Why does vision matter? As cited in J.S. Osland, D.A. Kolb, & I.M. Rubin (Eds.). The Organization Behavior Reader. 7th Edition. (pp. 381-383). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Table 18. Percentage distribution of school teachers by race/ethnicity, percentage minority, school type, and selected school characteristics, 2003-04. Washington, D.C. Author, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass_2004_18.asp.

National Center for Education Statistics (2010a). Special analysis 2010. High-poverty schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/analysis/index.asp.

National Center for Education Statistics (2010b). Special analysis 2010. High-poverty public schools. Mathematics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/analysis/section3a2.asp.

National Center for Education Statistics (2010c). Special analysis 2010. High-poverty public schools. Reading. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/analysis/section3a1.asp.

National Center for Education Statistics (2010d). Special analysis 2010. High-poverty public schools. What are the high school graduation rates for high-poverty schools, according to school administrators? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/analysis/section3b.asp.

National Education Association. (2006, November 14). Teachers take ―pay cut‖ as inflation outpaces salaries. Author. Retrieved from: http://www.nea.org/home/14809.htm.

Nunnery, J., Kaplan, L, Owings, W., & Pribesh, S. (2009). The Effects of Troops to Teachers on Student Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Approach. NASSP

Bulletin, 93 (4), 249-272. Nunnery, J.A., Owings, W.A, Kaplan, L.S. & Pribesh, S. (2008). The Effects of

Troops to Teachers on Student Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Approach. Final Report submitted to Troops To Teachers, A Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Owings, W.A., Kaplan, L.S., & Chappell, S. (2010, October). Effectiveness of Troops to Teachers Who Have Become School Administrators: A National Study. Report to Dr. William McAleer, Executive Director, Troops to Teachers, Pensacola, FL.

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass_2004_18.asp

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/analysis/index.asp

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/analysis/section3a2.asp

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/analysis/section3a1.asp

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/analysis/section3b.asp

http://www.nea.org/home/14809.htm


55

Owings, W. A., Kaplan, L. S., & Nunnery, (2005). Principal quality, ISLLC Standards, and Student Achievement. Journal of School Leadership, 15 (1),

99 – 115. Owings, W.A., Kaplan, L.S., Nunnery, J.A., Marzano, R., Myran, S. & Blackburn,

D. (2005, August 29). Supervisor perceptions of the quality of Troops to Teachers program completers and program completer perceptions of their preparation to teach: A national survey. Norfolk, VA: Old Dominion University. Grant from Virginia Office of Troops to Teachers.

Owings, W.A., Kaplan, L.S., Nunnery, J.A., Marzano, R., Myran, S., & Blackburn, D. (2006). Teacher quality and Troops to Teachers: A national study with implications for principals. National Association of Secondary School Principals‘ Bulletin, 90 (2), 102 – 131.

Pflaum, S. W. & Abramson, T. (1990). Teacher assignment, hiring, and preparation: Minority teachers in New York City. Urban Review 22(1): 17–31.

Presley, J., White, B., & Gong, Y. (2005). Examining the distribution and impact of teacher quality in Illinois. Edwardsville: Illinois Education Research Council. Retrieved from: http://ierc.siue.edu/documents/Teacher%20Quality%20IERC%202005-2.pdf.

Purkey, S. C. & Smith, M.S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4):427-452.

Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., & Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Econometric, 73 (2): 417-458. Robinson, V.M.J., Lloyd, C.A. & Rowe, K.J. (2008). The impact of leadership on

student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (5): 635-674.

Rockoff, J.E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94 (2): 247 – 252. Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teachers’

Expectations and Pupils’ Intellectual Development. New York: Rineholt and Winston.

Rotter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J. & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and Their Effects of Children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Roza, M. (2003). A matter of definition: Is there truly a shortage of school principals? (ERIC Document No. ED 477 647). Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center of Reinventing Public Education. Retrieved from: http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED477647.pdf.

Roza, M. (2006). How Districts Shortchange Low-Income and Minority Students. Funding Gap 2006. Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust, pp. 9-10. Roza, M. & Hill, P.T. (2004). How within district spending inequities help some schools to fail. Brookings Papers on Education Policy. 7: 201-227. Rubenstein, R. (1998). Resource equity in the Chicago public schools: A school-

level approach.‖ Journal of Education Finance. 23(4): 468–489.

http://ierc.siue.edu/documents/Teacher%20Quality%20IERC%202005-2.pdf

http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED477647.pdf


56

Rubenstein, R., Schwartz, A.E., & Stiefel, L. (2006, April). Rethinking the intradistrict distribution of school inputs to disadvantaged students. Paper presented at the conference titled ―Rethinking Rodriquez: Education as a Fundamental right,‖ Berkeley, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/rubenstein-schwartz-stiefel_paper.pdf.

Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key characteristics of effective schools: A review of school effectiveness research. London: OFSTED. Sanders, N. M. (2006, March).Timelines and process for updating the ISLLC standards for school leaders and the ELCC/NCATE program standards Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers, Retrieved from: www.ccsso.org/projects/Interstate_Consortium_on_School_Leadership/. Sanders, W.L. & Horn, S.P. (1995). Educational assessment reassessed: The usefulness of standardized and alternative measures of student achievement as indicates for the assessment of educational outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 3(6): 1-15. Retrieved from: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v3n6.html. Sanders, W.L. & Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center. Scafidi, B., Sjoquist, D.L., & Stinebrickner, T.R. (2008). Race, poverty, and teacher

mobility. Economics of Education Review 26 (2): 145-159. Scheerens, J & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. New York: Elsevier. Schnur, J. (2002, June 18). An outstanding principal in every school:

Using the new Title II to promote effective leadership. National Council on Teacher Quality. Available on-line at: www.nctq.orgt/press/2002_consumers_guide/schnur.htm.

Stiefel, L., Rubenstein, R., & Berne, R. (1998). Intradistrict equity in four large cities: Data, methods and results. Journal of Education Finance. 23(4): 447–467.

Stinebrickner, T. R. (2000). An analysis of occupational change and departure from the labor force: Evidence of the reasons that teachers quit. Working paper.

Tennessee Department of Education (2007, March). Tennessee’s most effective teachers: Are they assigned to the schools that need them the most? (Research Brief). Nashville, TN: Author. Retrieved from: http://tennessee.gov/education/nclb/doc/TeacherEffectiveness2007_03.pdf

Troops-to-Teachers Program. (2010). Part C – Innovation for Teacher Quality. Transitions to teaching. Troops-to-Teachers Program. U.S. Department of Education, Retrieved from: http:www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg27.html. Theobald, N. D., & Gritz, R. M. (1996). The effects of school district spending

priorities on the exit paths of beginning teachers leaving the district. Economics of Education Review, 15(1): 11–22.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/rubenstein-schwartz-stiefel_paper.pdf

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/rubenstein-schwartz-stiefel_paper.pdf

http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Interstate_Consortium_on_School_Leadership/

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v3n6.html

http://www.nctq.orgt/press/2002_consumers_guide/schnur.htm

http://tennessee.gov/education/nclb/doc/TeacherEffectiveness2007_03.pdf


57

Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (2006). Fund the Child: Tackling Inequity and Antiquity in School Finance. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Census Bureau (2008, August 14). Minorities set to be U.S. majority. U.S. Population Projections to 2050. Washington, D.C.: Author. As cited in BBC News On-line. Retrieved from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7559996.stm.

Weiher, G.R. & Tedin, K.L. (2002). Does choice lead to racially distractive schools? Charter schools and household preferences. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 21 (1): 79-92.

Wright, P., Horn, S., & Sanders, W. (1997). Teachers and classroom hegemony: Their effects on educational outcomes. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1): 57-67. Author: Leslie S. Kaplan, Ed.D. School Administrator (Retired)/Education Writer 13 Meeting Road Newport News, VA 23606 757-596-1424 [email protected] Dr. Kaplan‘s research and writing areas focus on educational foundations, teacher and principal quality, and school finance Co-Author: William A. Owings, Ed.D. Professor of Educational Leadership Darden College of Education Old Dominion University Norfolk, VA 23529 757-638-4594 [email protected] Dr. Owings‘ research and writing agenda focus on school finance, teacher and principal quality, and educational foundations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7559996.stm

mailto:[email protected]



58


59

Shaping School Culture: Pitfalls, Paradoxes, & Promises, 2nd Edition.

Terrence E. Deal and Kent D. Peterson. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, 2009

$27.00, 278 pages

Reviewed by

Leslie S. Kaplan, Ed.D., School Administrator (retired), Newport News Public Schools, Newport News, VA.

and William A. Owings, Ed.D., Professor of Educational Leadership

Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA. Anthropologists have a saying: Fish would be the last creatures to

discover water, even though water is the most ever-present and influential aspect of a fish‘s existence. The same might be said of those working within the school culture. Just as water surrounds fish, shaping their perspective and determining their course, a particular culture envelopes principals, teachers, students, and parents, forming their viewpoints and influencing their decisions and actions.

School culture profoundly impacts school functioning. The Effective

Schools research clearly identifies the school culture correlates necessary to successfully educate all students regardless of their socioeconomic status or family background. Yet, the absence of significant academic progress in public schools despite over 40 years of wide-spread national reforms attests to school leaders‘ inability to leverage school culture effectively.

Shaping culture is one of a leader‘s most important responsibilities.

Purposeful educators can alter their school cultures when they make their implicit assumptions, norms, and behaviors conscious and when they construct and enact shared strategies which support teaching and learning. In Shaping School Culture, Terrence Deal and Kent Peterson argue that today‘s schools need both rational, technical competence and symbol-laden cultural meaning – head and heart – if they are to improve teaching and learning . As school leaders, principals need to profoundly rethink their schools and their roles and define a more effective balance between structural reform and cultural meaning-making.

Deal and Peterson present school culture in specific detail. They use

dozens of case studies to help educators understand the concept, recognize how it appears in schools, and gain ideas for how they can actively shape their own schools‘ cultures in positive ways. Now in its second edition, their 2009 book can


60

be a valuable tool in harnessing school culture as a compelling means to design and enact sustainable school improvement. Organization of Shaping School Culture Deal and Peterson describe school culture as the school‘s unwritten rules, beliefs, and assumptions; the traditions, norms, and expectations which influence how people act and dress, what they discuss or avoid, their behaviors and feelings about their work and their students; and the informal social sanctions attached to violating these norms. More succinctly, school culture is ―the way we do things around here.‖

Deal and Peterson present their ideas in two parts over 15 chapters and a References section. Part I: The Elements of Culture, begins with Chapter 1, Schools as Tribes: The Power to Transform. Here authors discuss varied definitions of culture as a social science concept and as a school dynamic; provide the research base (specifically referencing the effective schools studies) connecting school culture and productivity as it appears in student achievement, collegiality, problem solving, innovation, and motivation; and highlight schools‘ symbolic aspects as essential bestowers of meaning, value, and purpose. Chapter 2, Artifacts, Architecture, and Routine: Symbols of Culture, expresses symbols‘ role in meaning-making for organizations, nations, and families; how the schools‘ artifacts (i.e., mission statements, displays of student work, banners, awards and trophies, mascots, physical plant and architecture) convey the schools‘ core values; and how principals‘ own behaviors become symbols of the school‘s core ideas.

Chapter 3, History: The Value of Lore and Tradition, explains how knowing a school‘s past legacy is central to moving forward. The chapter describes how all schools have founding core beliefs and values which can continue to infuse optimism and direction in challenging times; and it suggests specific questions school leaders can ask to determine their school‘s cultural history and core values. Chapter 4, Myth, Vision, and Values: Discovering a School’s Highest Calling, contends that every tightly knit human group – including schools – anchors its existence in a unifying myth or core story that incorporates its beliefs, values, and purpose; clarifies this mission‘s importance in motivating and directing individuals and in allocating resources; identifies schools‘ functional and dysfunctional norms; and challenges readers to recapture education‘s ―magic and myth‖ that enables teachers believe in themselves and the public to have confidence in public schools. Chapter 5, Stories and Tales: Passing Along the Vision, explains how leaders can use an organization‘s history to shape and sustain its culture by telling and retelling inspiring stories about its people and events which convey the


61

organization‘s key values and preferred solutions. Chapter 6, Rituals: Embedding Purpose and Meaning, makes clear how a variety of rituals turn daily routines into special moments of ―spiritual fuel‖ which allow organization members to collectively reflect on their core values, connect with each other, and renew their sense of common purpose and direction. Chapter 7, Ceremonies and Traditions: Culture in Action, observes how occasions to celebrate successes, communicate values, and recognize employees‘ special contributions bind members together with the educational enterprise in shared pride and esteem; and describes the elements of ceremonies and traditions that carry meaning. Chapter 8, Conveyors of Culture: Positive and Negative Transmitters, explains culture-tending as a shared leadership responsibility; characterizes members of the supportive and toxic cultural networks (i.e., priests and priestesses, story tellers, gossips, spies, heroes and heroines vs. saboteurs, negahoics, prima donnas, space cadets, and martyrs); and describes their roles in culture shaping. Part II: The Symbolic Role of School Leaders, starts with Chapter 9, Weaving the Cultural Tapestry: Seven Schools. In Chapter 9, the authors explain how thriving school cultures are woven together by using local materials shaped in accordance with community ideas and expectations; illustrate this point with seven examples of using indigenous symbolic elements; and describe the factors that set the conditions for developing positive new school cultures. Chapter 10, Transforming Toxic Cultures: Renewal Strategies, portrays characteristics of negative school cultures, explains how toxic cultures develop, and suggests several strategies to transform negative school cultures into positive ones. Chapter 11, Building Trust: Connecting to Parents and Communities, considers schools‘ efforts to involve parents in their children‘s education by building a climate of respect and trust; and explains how schools can construct their ―brand‖ with parents and the community. Chapter 12, Strengthening Culture: Eight Essential Roles, characterizes (i.e., as historian, anthropological sleuth, visionary, icon, potter, poet, actor, and healer) how school leaders can nudge the culture-building process through their questions, conversations, decisions, public statements, and actions. Chapter 13, Living with Paradox: The Bifocal Principal, articulates the authors‘ view that school reform has emphasized structure and rationality at the expense of symbols and spirituality; and they assert the need for principals to shape culture by simultaneously addressing both rational and symbolic elements in their work to create order and meaning. Chapter 14, Achieving Balance: Meeting Cultural and Structural Demands, depicts how principals can find the balance between cultural sensitivity and technical efficiency, using rational acts to serve cultural needs, and vice versa. Chapter 15, Conclusion: Opportunities for the Future,


62

reprises the authors‘ theme that schools won‘t become what students deserve until school leaders shape cultural patterns to support learning and describes five central paradoxes facing school leaders. Authors’ orientation

Reframing the Argument. Challenging the ―accountability–by–test–

scores‖ uber-rationality, Deal and Peterson seek to expand organizational leaders‘ mental models to better reflect an increasingly multifaceted and ambiguous world. Deal has considerable experience in this domain. As co-authored with Lee Bolman in Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (1991, Jossey-Bass; 2008, 4th Edition, Corwin), Deal suggests four cognitive frames by which to look beyond narrow and mechanical thinking to a more expressive, artistic conception that encourages flexibility, creativity, and interpretation. Such a multifaceted viewpoint allows individuals to perceive a more accurate account of what is really happening.

In Deal and Bolman‘s four-frame model, a human resource frame stresses

people‘s needs, skills, and the importance of a caring, trusting climate. A structural frame emphasizes goals, efficiency, policies, a clear chain of command, and results (such as standardized test scores). A political frame highlights world of scarce resources, power, conflict, negations, and compromise. A symbolic frame focuses on meaning and the symbols, rituals, ceremonies, stories, and other graphic forms which motivate, communicate, and inspire people. In Shaping School Culture, Deal and Peterson actively weave human resource, structural, political, and symbolic perspectives throughout their book as essential lenses which school leaders can leverage to shape school culture.

As a field, education tends to rely more on certain cognitive frames than others. Policy makers urging school reform tend to rely on structural frames, emphasizing goals, restructuring, uniform academic standards, and standardized tests. School leaders tend to see events through a human relations lens, anticipating how new initiatives might affect people. Less visible but no less influential, individuals continuously rely on power and sway, working behind the scenes alone and in coalitions to get what they want. Finally, symbolic factors inspire strong emotions which impact people‘s motivation, commitment, and loyalties to the organization.

Given this context, Deal and Peterson reserve special attention for the often-neglected symbolic aspects of school culture, what many dismiss as ―soft,‖ ―fluff,‖ or superficial. They repeatedly recommend that school leaders purposefully use symbols, stories, rituals, traditions, and ceremonies – all directed at student learning – to create meaning, manage the culture, and govern behavior through shared values, informal agreements, and implicit


63

understandings among organizational members. In Shaping School Culture, Deal and Peterson continually reframe ordinary school events and behaviors as potential meaning-making exemplars of core values, helping readers see once overlooked possibilities. When school leaders have a more holistic and consequential appreciation for what is happening around them, they can respond more resourcefully and effectively. In contrast, a school culture which lacks these repeated and shared symbols loses the motivating emotions that direct faculty and staff efforts towards collective and valued goals.

A Rose-Colored Outlook. In calling for ―The Remystification of Schools,‖ Deal and Peterson correctly argue that today‘s accountability pressures nudge schools away from time-honored cultural values or practices in favor of standardized test scores as the only acceptable and tangible proof that schools are getting the job done. Yet test scores, the authors remind us, show only a small bit of what students gain from their time at school. As a result, evidence of success is both limited and spotty, too often tied to students‘ ethnicity or socioeconomic standing rather than important learning that might be occurring. Over time, this narrow focus on machine-scorable outcomes erodes teachers‘ beliefs in their ability to make a difference and weakens public confidence in schools. The key challenge, Deal and Peterson assert, is to ―recapture the magic and myth of education‖ (p. 69) in order to enable teachers to believe in their importance and convince the public that schools are worthy of their confidence and support. To remedy this situation, schools should reconnect ―with historical roots as fundamental step in shaping school culture‖ (p. 57). ―The bedrock of cultural vitality and stability lies in the optimist myths, missions, purposes, values, beliefs, assumptions and norms that, deep down, people cherish‖ (pp. 69-70). They advise readers to ―Remembrance the mythology that launched the public school system in this country: school should be a place to create a sense of community; each student should be able to realize his or her potential; each teacher should feel fulfilled; each parent should experience joy in watching their child learn and grow‖ (p. 70).

Magic and myth, however, cannot undo our less idyllic historical realities. True, the United States has a powerful mythology about equal opportunity and casts public schools as its primary vehicle. Our early national leaders saw universal education as essential for our political and societal well being, and the country eventually adopted Horace Mann‘s 19th century vision of public schools as our society‘s great equalizers. Yet these ideals about education for all children consistently outran our nation‘s abilities (or desires) to put these values into action. Deal and Peterson‘s ―magic and myth‖ reflects an inspiring goal whose full intent has yet to be realized. Even today, many believe that public schools typically reinforce rather than overcome our communities‘ social, racial, and ethnic divides.


64

Additionally, some may disagree with Deal and Peterson‘s rosy statement that ―schools are established for the primary purpose of making growing up a happy, engaging, fun learning experience‖ (p. 74).

Rather than take refuge in ―magic and myth,‖ Deal and Peterson might be more persuasive if they gave a brief nod to critical theory and articulated the variety of ways in which today‘s public schools might reculture themselves to end those inequitable beliefs, values, and practices which systematically reinforce injustices against low-income children and children of color. Likewise, school leaders can help their schools consciously adopt the vision, symbols, and practices which ensure that all students – regardless of socioeconomic or family background – learn to high levels. A more accurate accounting of public schools‘ historic disconnect between its ideals and its practices can help teachers recognize their crucial roles in student learning. At the same time, a more honest accounting may persuade the school communities that schools are worthy of their confidence and support. To be fair, while many of Deal and Peterson‘s case studies illustrate this social justice perspective in action, confirming this view explicitly in words would send a less rose- tinted message about school culture in our nation‘s education history. Contributions to the Field After studying organizational culture together for over two decades (and Deal with others for over 30 years), Deal and Peterson know this topic and recognize how school leaders can shape it for better education outcomes. They clearly and vividly define the aspects of school culture in ways that school leaders can easily recognize in their own settings. They give dozens of examples and case studies from schools and businesses to illustrate how the various aspects of school culture may appear and can be constructively shaped. Deal and Peterson also address practices to engage parents and the community in activities that support a school culture that prizes teaching and learning.

Throughout, their writing style is readable, thorough, insightful, relevant, and occasionally scholarly, effectively tying the abstract to the practical in ways that school leaders can easily comprehend and use to understand and contour their school‘s culture.

Finally, Deal and Peterson use the paradox concept to discredit the false duality of either – or and to accept the complementary both – and. Effective schools are both technically competent and spiritually meaningful. School officials can be both leaders and managers. When school leaders find the balance between rationality and spirituality, they can accomplish both purposes with a single ritual, ceremony, artifact, or vision/mission statement. Every event or situation provides occasions for leading while managing, managing while leading. For


65

busy school principals and teacher leaders, this paradoxical perspective makes shaping school culture a more realistic endeavor. Until school leaders can shape their cultural patterns and practices to continuously support teaching and learning, meaningful and sustainable school improvement cannot occur. Review authors

Leslie S. Kaplan, Ed.D., a retired school administrator in Newport News,

VA, has provided middle, high school, and central office instructional leadership and program development. Her scholarly publications co-authored with William Owings appear in numerous professional journals. She and Owings have also co-authored Leadership and Organizational Behavior in Education: Theory into Practice, American Education: Building a Common Foundation; American Public School Finance; Teacher Quality, Teaching Quality, and School Improvement; Best Practices, Best Thinking, and Emerging Issue in School Leadership; and Enhancing Teacher and Teaching Quality. Kaplan is co-editor of the Journal for Effective Schools, and also serves on the NASSP Bulletin Editorial Board. She is a past president of the Virginia Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

William A. Owings, Ed.D., is currently a professor of educational

leadership and graduate program director at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. Owings has worked as a public school teacher, an elementary and high school principal, assistant superintendent, and superintendent of schools. In addition, his scholarly publications co-authored with Leslie Kaplan include articles in National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Bulletin, Journal of School Leadership, Journal of Effective Schools, Phi Delta Kappan, Teachers College Record, and the Journal of Education Finance. Owings has served on the state and international board of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), is currently the editor of the Journal for Effective Schools, and is on the Journal of Education Finance Editorial Advisory Board. He is a frequent presenter at state and national conferences and a consultant on educational leadership, school finance, and instructional improvement.


66


67

JES Mission

The Journal for Effective Schools has earned a positive national reputation for featuring thoughtful, carefully researched and written articles by scholars and practitioners in the area of Effective Schools. It is the JES mission to publish original contributions in the areas of new research related to Effective Schools; applied research related to the Effective Schools literature; descriptions of research-supported Effective Schools practices in classrooms, buildings, districts, and policy and governance; research and practice related to preparation of educational personnel; and scholarly reviews of research, book reviews, and other topics related to Effective Schools.

Editorial Policy

The Editors welcome articles concerned with the problems and issues of Effective Schools. The Journal for Effective Schools exists to disseminate knowledge in the field of Effective Schools. This includes research and policy advancement in the preK-12 education environments. Four criteria apply to reviewing and selecting articles for publication. First, articles must advance knowledge, theory, and practice. Second, the articles‘ content must be accurate and technically competent. Third, articles must be well written, clear, well organized, and stylistically correct. Fourth, articles should reference the Effective School Correlate/s germane to the manuscript. A manuscript submitted for publication to JES must be original and not under consideration for any other publications. When a manuscript is published by the JES, it becomes the property of the Journal with the Journal possessing exclusive right to publication. All authors will be required to sign a consent-to-publish form upon acceptance.

Submission Guidelines

Electronic manuscripts should be sent to Dr. William Owings, Editor, Journal for Effective Schools, at [email protected] for consideration. Manuscripts not following specifications described here will be returned to the author(s). The editors conduct a blind peer-review process; therefore, authors must exclude their names, institutions, and clues to authors' identities from within the manuscript text.

Length, Typing, Style: Manuscripts must be submitted in Word (2003 or 2007) as an attachment. The title should appear at the top of the first page. A manuscript, including all references, tables, and figures, should be 20-40 pages in length. In rare circumstances, longer manuscripts may be considered. Authors should keep tables and figures to a minimum and include them at the end of the text. All text,



68

including titles, headings, references, quotations, figure captions, and tables, must be typed double-spaced with one-inch margins all around. All pages must be numbered. Any abbreviations and acronyms not well known to the average reader should be explained. For writing, editorial style, and references, authors must follow the guidelines in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (Sixth Edition).

Abstract and Cover Page: All manuscripts must include an abstract. Abstracts describing the essence of the manuscript must be 100-150 words and be typed double-spaced on a separate page. On the cover page, authors must include their name(s), title, institution, mailing address, daytime phone number(s), fax number, email address, and a brief (10 words of fewer) description(s) of area(s) of specialization. Publication Schedule: JES is published bi-annually: Spring and Fall.

Editorial Style: APA, 6th ed.

Number of copies to be submitted: Email is the preferred submission method.

Author’s responsibilities: If the manuscript is accepted for publication, all graphs and illustrative materials must be provided in camera-ready form by the author. Specifications will be sent to the author upon acceptance.

Editorial Procedures: Manuscripts submitted to the JES are processed as follows. Upon receipt, the manuscript is initially reviewed by the staff. If the manuscript does not fall within the scope of the Journal or is not formatted according to APA, 6th ed., it will be returned to the author. If a manuscript is in accord with the guidelines, an email acknowledgment is sent to the author. All references to the author‘s name and affiliation are removed and the manuscript is submitted to two or more reviewers. With the advice of the reviewers, the Editor will make one of four decisions: accept, accept contingent upon satisfactory revision, revise and resubmit, or reject. In the case of conditional acceptance, the Editor will specify the necessary revisions in writing to the author. In the case of a request for revision and resubmission, the Editor will suggest or specify revisions in writing to the author. Upon resubmission, the manuscript will be treated as a new manuscript and will be submitted to the same blind review as the initial process. Manuscripts which have been rejected will not be returned to the author. Manuscripts submitted to the Journal for Effective Schools cannot be under consideration for publication by other journals. If a paper has been presented at a meeting or conference, the author should state where and when the paper was


69

presented. After acceptance, a manuscript or any portion of a paper may not be published elsewhere without written approval from the Editor of the Journal for Effective Schools. If a manuscript is accepted, the author will be notified and given an indication of the volume and issue in which it will be published. At this time, the author must submit the final copy of the manuscript in electronic attachment form, preferably in Microsoft Word (2003 or 2007). The email should indicate the file(s) name(s) and the software used. Any graphs or other illustrative materials contained in the manuscript must be provided as a grayscale TIFF, PDF, or EPS file by the author and NOT embedded within the text. Tables should be provided at the end of the manuscript. The staff of the Journal for Effective Schools agrees to process manuscripts promptly. In most cases, an editorial decision may be expected eight to 10 weeks after submission. Technical and Stylistic Requirements: Manuscripts submitted to the Journal for Effective Schools must be grammatically correct and stylistically consistent. See APA, 6th ed., for scientific and statistical works required style. JES prefers that manuscripts be submitted for review in Word format with no author reference in the file. Submit a separate file with title page, author names, and contact information in Word format. Final manuscripts should be in one file in Word format. Copy should be double-spaced with margins of 1" at top, bottom, and both sides. Manuscript should contain an abstract, introduction, and conclusion. The reference list must be complete and consistent with in-text callouts. See APA for guidelines. There should be no hyphenated words on line endings; no printed borders; and no numbered line indicators on the left margin. Clearly indicate heading levels throughout manuscript. It is suggested to keep tables and graphs to a maximum of five. The title page should contain the following: title of the paper; the author‘s(s‘) full name; institutional affiliation and position, telephone number, and e-mail address; statement of place and date of previous oral presentation of the paper, if any; and a disclaimer statement, if applicable. All correspondence and contact during the review and production processes will be addressed to the first author listed. The Journal for Effective Schools does not publish statements of acknowledgment to colleagues who assisted in the preparation of the manuscript.


70

CALL FOR ARTICLES FOR UPCOMMING ISSUES!

Detailed information concerning the submission of manuscripts can

be found on the internet at http://effectiveschoolsjournal.org

Articles for potential publication in the Journal for Effective Schools may be submitted on an on-going basis to

[email protected]

Journal for Effective Schools at

Old Dominion University College of Education

Educational Foundations and Leadership Norfolk, Virginia 23529

http://effectiveschoolsjournal.org/


CALL FOR ARTICLES FOR UPCOMMING ISSUES!

Detailed information concerning the submission of

manuscripts can be found on the internet at http://effectiveschoolsjournal.org

Articles for potential publication in the

Journal for Effective Schools may be submitted on an on-going basis to

[email protected]

Journal for Effective Schools at



Published by Journal for Effective Schools at



JES: Fall 2010, Vol. 9, #2

Documents

Transcript of JES: Fall 2010, Vol. 9, #2