This qualitative study of teachers in three low-performing elementary schools in Chicago reveals that transformational leadership behaviors were important to teacher motivation, affecting whether they believed that they could improve student performance as the accountability policy required. The findings suggest that principal leadership is critical to turning around low-performing schools. Implications include developing policies to hire principals with proven track records and increasing the capacity of current principals to ensure that they are able to support and motivate teachers in low-performing schools.
AbelmannC. H.ElmoreR. F.EvenJ.KenyonS.MarshallJ. (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer?Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education.
2.
AdamsJ. E.Jr.KirstM. W. (1999). New demands and concepts for educational accountability: Striving for results in an era of excellence. In MurphyJ.LouisK. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational administration (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3.
BennettA. (2001). The history, politics, and theory of action of the Chicago probation policy. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
4.
BlaseJ.BlaseJ. (2001). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
5.
BrykA. S.SchneiderB. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
6.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.KerbowD.RollowS.EastonJ. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
7.
ChungK. H. (1977). Motivational theory and practices. Columbus, OH: Grid.
8.
ElmoreR. F. (2001). Psychiatrists and lightbulbs: Educational accountability and the problem of capacity. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
9.
Enderlin-LampeS. (1997). Shared decision making in schools: Effect on teacher efficacy. Education, 118(1), 150-156.
10.
FinniganK. S.BitterC.O’DayJ. (2009). Improving low-performing schools through external assistance: Lessons from Chicago and California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(7). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v17n7/
11.
FinniganK.O’DayJ. (2003). External support to schools on probation: Getting a leg up?Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education and Consortium on Chicago School Research.
12.
FuhrmanS. H. (1999). The new accountability. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
13.
GoldringE. B.SullivanA. V. (1996). Beyond the boundaries: Principals, parents and communities shaping the school environment. In LeithwoodK. (Ed.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
14.
HessG. A.Jr. (1999). Expectations, opportunity, capacity, and will: The four essential components of Chicago school reform. Educational Policy, 13, 494-517.
15.
HessG. A.Jr. (1994). Chicago school reform: A response to unmet needs of students at risk. In RossiR. J. (Ed.), Schools and students at risk: Context and framework for positive change (pp. 207-228). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
16.
HippK. A. (1995). Exploring relationships between principals’ leadership behaviors and teachers’ sense of efficacy in Wisconsin middle schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI.
17.
KatzellR. A.ThompsonD. E. (1990). Work motivation: Theory and practice. American Psychologist, 45(2), 144-153.
18.
KelleyC. (1998). The Kentucky school-based performance award program: School-level effects. Educational Policy, 12, 305-324.
LawlerE. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
22.
LeeV. E.BrykA. S.SmithJ. B. (1993). The organization of effective secondary schools. Review of Research in Education, 19, 171-267.
23.
LeithwoodK.JantziD.FernandezA. (1994). Transformational leadership and teachers’ commitment to change. In MurphyJ.LouisK. S. (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts (pp. 77-98). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
24.
LeithwoodK.SteinbachR.JantziD. (2002). School leadership and teachers’ motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 94-119.
25.
LeithwoodK.TomlinsonD.GengeM. (1996). Transformational school leadership. In LeithwoodK. (Ed.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 785-840). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
26.
LipmanP. (2002). Chicago school policy and the politics of race: Toward a discourse of equity and justice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
27.
McLaughlinM. W. (1990). The RAND change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researchers, 19(9), 11-16.
28.
MohrmanS. A.LawlerE. E. (1996). Motivation for school reform. In FuhrmanS. H.O’DayJ. A. (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 115-143). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
29.
O’DayJ. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 293-329.
30.
OwensR. G. (2001). Organizational behavior in education: Instructional leadership and school reform (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
31.
RosenholtzS. J. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of Education, 93, 352-388.
32.
RossJ. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In BrophyJ. E. (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Expectations in the classroom (Vol. 7, 49-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
33.
RowanB. (1996). Standards as incentives for instructional reform. In FuhrmanS. H.O’DayJ. A. (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 195-225). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
34.
SebringP. B.BrykA. S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 440-443.
35.
StawB. M.SandelandsL. E.DuttonJ. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501-524.
36.
Tschannen-MoranM.HoyA. W.HoyW. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
37.
VroomV. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: John Wiley.
