This 3-year case study examined middle grades principal leadership in a takeover charter school. The researcher analyzed principal and teacher interviews, field notes, and documents in relationship to a middle grades model of principal leadership. Results suggest the principals’ limited experience, organizational factors unique to takeover charter schools, an emphasis on student test scores, and a personal educational philosophy of teacher autonomy, precluded the advocacy and implementation of elements of the middle grades principal leadership model.
AnfaraV. A.RoneyK.SmarkolaC.DuCetteJ. P.GrossS. J. (2006). The developmentally responsive middle level principal: A leadership model and measurement instrument. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.
2.
ArharJ. M.KromreyJ. D. (1995). Interdisciplinary teaming and the demographics of membership: A comparison of student belonging in high SES and low SES middle level Schools. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 18(2), 71-88.
3.
BarriosL. (2013, March10). Education reform is an illusion [Letter to the editor]. Times-Picayune, p. B8.
4.
BeaneJ. A. (2013). A common core of a different sort: Putting democracy at the center of the curriculum. Middle School Journal, 44(3), 6-14.
5.
BerendsM.GoldringE.SteinM.CravensX. (2010). Instructional conditions in charter schools and students’ mathematics achievement gains. American Journal of Education, 116, 303-335.
6.
BickmoreD. L. (2011). Confirming a middle grades leadership model and instrument. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 34(10), 1-15.
7.
BickmoreD. L. (2012). Professional learning experiences and administrator practice: Is there a connection?Professional Development in Education, 38(1), 95-112. doi:10.1080/19415257.2011.579004
8.
BickmoreD. L.BickmoreS. T.HartL. E. (2005). Interdisciplinary teaming as an induction practice. NASSP Bulletin, 89(644), 30-53.
9.
BickmoreD. L.Sulentic DowellM. M. (2011). Concerns, use of time, and the intersections of leadership: Case study of two charter school principals. Research in the Schools, 18(1), 44-61.
10.
BrownK. M.AnfaraV. A. (2002). From the desk of the middle school principal: Leadership responsive to the needs of young adolescents. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
11.
BrownK. M.AnfaraV. A.HartmanK. J.MaharR. J.MillsR. (2002). Professional development of middle level principals: Pushing the reform forward. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1, 107-143.
12.
CampbellC.GrossB. (2008). Working without a safety net: How charter school leaders can best survive on the high wire. Seattle: National Charter School Research Project, Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington.
ClarkD. C.ClarkS. N. (2000). Developmentally responsive curriculum and standards-based reform: Implications for middle level principals. NASSP Bulletin, 84(615), 1-13.
15.
ClarkS. N.ClarkD. C. (2001). The challenge of curricular and instructional improvement in an era of high stakes testing. Middle School Journal, 33(2), 52-56.
16.
ClarkS. N.ClarkD. C. (2008). Leadership that makes a difference: Revitalizing middle schools. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Associations.
17.
CollinsK. M. T.OnwuegbuzieA. J.JiaoQ. G. (2007). A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 267-294. doi:10.1177/1558689807299526
18.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
FelnerR. D.JacksonA. W.KasakD. T. (1997). The impact of school reform for the middle years: Longitudinal study of a network engaged in turning points-based comprehensive school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 528-532.
20.
GaleJ. J.BishopP. A. (2014). The work of effective middle grades principals: Responsiveness and relationship. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 34(4), 1-23.
21.
GawlikM. A. (2008, November). Breaking loose: Principal autonomy in charter and public schools. Educational Policy, 22, 783-804 doi:10.1177/0895904807307058
22.
GeorgeP. S. (2011). The American middle school movement: Taking the long view. Middle School Journal, 43(2), 44-52.
23.
GeorgeP. S.AlexanderW. M. (2003). The exemplary middle school (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
24.
GrissomJ. A.LoebS. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness how perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1091-1123.
25.
GrossB. (2011). Inside charter schools: Unlocking doors to student success. Seattle: Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington.
26.
JacksonA.DavisG. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
27.
JindalB. (2013, September15). Louisiana is leading the way in education. Times-Picayune, pp. E1-E4.
28.
JuvonenJ.LeV.KaganoffT.AugustineC.ConstantL. (2004). Focus on the wonder years: Challenges facing the American middle school. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
29.
KayeE. A. (Ed.). (2012). Requirements for certification of teachers, counselors, librarians, administrators for elementary and secondary schools, 2012-2013. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
30.
KeefeJ. W.ValentineJ.ClarkD. C.IrvineJ. L. (1994). Leadership in middle level education. Vol. II: A national survey of middle level leaders and schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
31.
KelloughR. D.KelloughN. G. (2003). Teaching young adolescents: A guide to methods and resources (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
32.
LeCompteM. D.PreissleJ.TeschR. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
33.
LeithwoodK. A.LouisK. S.AndersonS.WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: Review of research (Vol. 2006, pp. 1-90). Minneapolis: Center of Applied Research and Educational Improvement, University of Minnesota.
LovelessT. (2010). The 2009 Brown Center report on American education: How well are American students learning?With sections of NAEP trends, the persistence of school test scores, and conversion charter schools. Volume II, pp. 4. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
36.
LubienskiC. A.WeitzelP. C. (2010). The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
37.
McEwinC. K.GreenM. W. (2010). Results and recommendations from the 2009 national surveys of randomly selected and highly successful middle level schools. Middle School Journal, 42(1), 49-63.
38.
McGaughyL. (2013, March10). House majority leader Eric Cantor visits St. Mary’s Academy. Times-Picayune, p. B3.
39.
MersethK. K. (2009). Inside urban charter schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
40.
MertensS. B.FlowersN. (2003). Middle school practices improve student achievement in high poverty schools. Middle School Journal, 35(1), 33-43.
41.
MusserM. P.CaskeyM. M.SamekL. L.KimY. M.GreenW. L.CarpenterJ. M.CasbonJ. (2013). Image a place where teaching and learning are inspirational: A decade of collected wisdom from the field. Middle School Journal, 44(4), 6-19.
42.
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2008). Charter school executives: Toward a new generation of leadership. Washington, DC: Author.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). Characteristics of public, private, and Bureau of Indian Education elementary and secondary school principals in the United States: Results from the 2007–08 Schools and Staffing Survey. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009323/tables.asp
45.
National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.
46.
National Middle School Association. (2010a). Research and resources in support of this we believe. Westerville, OH: Author.
47.
National Middle School Association. (2010b). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.
48.
No Child Left Behind, Public Law No. 107-1110, 115 Stat. 1425, 2002, 107th Cong. (2001).
49.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
PowellS. D. (2011). Introduction to middle school (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
51.
SaldañaJ. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
52.
SanzoK. L.ShermanW. H.ClaytonJ. (2011). Leadership practices of successful middle school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(1), 31-45. doi:10.1108/09578231111102045
53.
StakeR. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
54.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Department of Education Race to the Top Fund: Executive summary: Notice of proposed priorities requirements, definitions and selection criteria. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf
55.
ValentineJ.ClarkD. C.HackmanD. G.PetzkoV. N. (2004). Leadership for highly successful middle level schools: A national study of highly successful leaders and schools volume II. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
56.
WilliamsT.KirstM. W.HaertelE. (2010). Gaining ground in the middle: Why some schools do better. Mountain View: CA: EdSource, Stanford University School of Education.
57.
WohlstetterP.SmithJ.FarrellC. (2013). Choices and challenges: Charter school performance in perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
58.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
59.
ZimmerR.GillB.BookerK.LavertuS.SassT. R.WitteJ. (2009). Charter schools in eight states: Effects on achievement, attainment, integration, and competition. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
