This article presents the findings of a qualitative study of four middle school principals in one urban school district. It focuses on principals’ almost exclusively negative descriptions of the families and communities served by their schools. Whereas much previous writing on this topic has attributed such deficit attitudes to a few bad-thinking educators, this article argues that these principals beliefs are in fact aligned with prevailing attitudes about urban communities, the purposes of schooling, and what leadership can and should do in urban schools Remedying principals’ deficit frameworks is a prerequisite for school improvement and will require selecting, preparing, and supporting principals differently; it will also require making visible the systems of belief that obstruct connections between urban schools and communities
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnyonJ. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform.New York: Teachers College Press.
2.
AnyonJ. (2005). What “counts” as educational policy? Notes toward a new paradigm. Harvard Educational Review, 75(1), 65–88.
3.
AuerbachS. (2007). Visioning parent engagement in urban schools. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 699–734.
4.
BoydW. L. (1991). What makes ghetto schools work or not work?Advances in Educational Administration, 2, 83–129.
5.
BrykA., SebringP., KerbowD., RollowS., & EastonJ. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for change.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
6.
CarnoyM., & LevinH. (1985). Schooling and work in the democratic state.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7.
CarterS. (1999). No excuses: Seven principals of low-income schools who set the standard for high achievement.Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.
8.
ChenowethK. (2007). “It's being done”: Academic success in unexpected schools.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
9.
CollinsP. H. (2009). Another kind of public education: Race, schools, the media, and democratic possibilities.Boston: Beacon Press.
10.
ConchasG. (2006). The color of success: Race and high-achieving urban youth.New York: Teachers College Press.
11.
CoplandM. (2001). The myth of the superprincipal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 528–533.
12.
CorbettD., WilsonB., & WilliamsB. (2002). Effort and excellence in urban classrooms: Expecting—and getting—success with all students.New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
CorterC., & PelletierJ. (2005). Parent and community involvement in schools: Policy panacea or pandemic? In BasciaN., CummingA., DatnowA, LeithwoodK., & LivingstoneD. (Eds.), International handbook of educational policy (pp. 295–327). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
14.
CoxJ. (2001, June). Using test results: A four step process (with an emphasis on California's STAR program). Paper presented at the Alumni Advanced Symposium of the Association of California School Administrators.
15.
CrenshawK., GotandaN, PellerG., & ThomasK. (Eds.). (1995). Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement.New York: New Press.
16.
CubanL. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools.Albany: State University of New York Press.
17.
CubanL. (2001a, May 30). How systemic reform harms urban schools, and what we can do about it. Education Week, p. 48.
18.
CubanL. (2001b). Leadership for student learning: Urban school leadership— Different in kind and degree.Washington, DC: School Leadership for the 21st Century Initiative.
19.
EdmondsR. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational leadership, 37(1), 15–24.
20.
Education Trust. (2005). Gaining traction, gaining ground: How some high schools accelerate learning for struggling students.Washington, DC: Author.
21.
EpsteinJ. (1995). A comprehensive framework for school, family, and community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(9), 701–712.
22.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161). New York: MacMillan Library Reference.
23.
EvansA. (2007). School leaders and their sensemaking about race and demographic change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 159–188.
24.
FergusonA. (2000). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of Black masculinity.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
25.
FlessaJ. (2005). Principal behaviors and school outcomes. In HughesL. (Ed.), Is- sues in school leadership (pp. 265–288). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
FlessaJ. (2007). The problematic purpose of urban school leadership. Orbit, 36(3), 31–33.
27.
FlessaJ., Ciuffetelli ParkerD., Gallagher-MackayK., & BeckerH. (2009, February). Learning from schools in challenging circumstances: Emerging findings from new research in Ontario. Changing Perspectives, pp. 2–4.
28.
FlessaJ., Gallagher-MackayK., & Ciuffetelli ParkerD. (2010). “Good, steady progress”: Success stories from Ontario elementary schools in challenging circumstances. Manuscript under review.
29.
FlessaJ., & KetelleD. (2007). Persuasive, pervasive, and limiting: How causal explanations shape urban educational research and practice. In PinkW. T., & NoblitG. W. (Eds.), International handbook of urban education (pp. 803–824). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
30.
FosterM. (2007). Urban education in North America: Section editor's introduction. In PinkW. T., & NoblitG. W. (Eds.), International handbook of urban education (pp. 765–778). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
31.
GilmanD. A., & Lanman-GivensB. (2001). Where have all the principals gone?Educational Leadership, 58(8), 72–74.
32.
GrubbW. N. (2006). Families and schools raising children: The inequitable effects of family background on schooling outcomes. In BerrickJ. D., & GilbertN. (Eds.), Raising children: Emerging needs, modern risks, and social responses (pp. 221–249). New York: Oxford University Press.
33.
GrubbW. N. (2009). The money myth: School resources, outcomes, and equity.New York: Russell Sage.
34.
GrubbW. N., & LazersonM. (2004). The education gospel: The economic power of schooling.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
HabermanM. (1995). Star teachers of children in poverty.West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
36.
HaycockK. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well qualified teachers can close the gap. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 1–2.
37.
HendersonA., & MappK. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement.Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
38.
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2000). Leadership for student learning: Reinventing the principalship.Washington, DC: School Leadership for the 21st Century Initiative. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from http://www.iel.org/programs/21st/reports/principal.pdf
39.
JohnsonL., FinnM., & LewisR. (2005). Urban education with an attitude.Albany: State University of New York Press.
40.
KatzM. (1993). The urban “underclass” as a metaphor of social transformation. In KatzM. (Ed.), The “underclass” debate: Views from history (pp. 3–26). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41.
KatzM. (1995). Improving poor people: The welfare state, the “underclass,” and urban schools as history.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
KirpD., & DriverC. (1995). The aspirations of systemic reform meet the realities of localism. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(3), 589–612.
43.
KumashiroK. (2008). The seduction of common sense: How the Right has framed the debate on America's schools.New York: Teachers College Press.
44.
LabareeD. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81.
45.
LareauA., & ShumarW. (1996). The problem of individualism in family-school policies. Sociology of Education, 69, 24–39.
46.
LeaderG. (with Stern, A). (2008). Real leaders, real school: Stories of success against enormous odds.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
47.
LeeV., & BurkhamD. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school.Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
48.
LeithwoodK., & JantziD. (2006). A critical review of the parent engagement literature. Unpublished report submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Education, Parent Engagement Office, Toronto, Canada.
49.
LeithwoodK., LouisK. S., AndersonS., & WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: Executive summary.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
50.
LeonardoZ., & HunterM. (2007). Imagining the urban: The politics of race, class, and schooling. In PinkW. T., & NoblitG. W. (Eds.), International handbook of urban education (pp. 779–802). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
LevineD., CooperE., & HilliardA.III (2001). Improving achievement in the context of effective schools research.Washington, DC: National Urban Alliance for Effective Education at the Council of the Great City Schools.
53.
LipskyzM. (1983). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services.New York: Russell Sage.
54.
LopezG. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory perspective. Educational Administration, 39(1), 68–94.
55.
LopezM., & StackC. (2001). Social capital and the culture of power: Lessons from the field. In SaegertS., Phillip ThompsonJ., & WarrenM. R. (Eds.), Social capital and poor communities (pp. 31–59). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
56.
LomoteyK. (1989). African-American principals: School leadership and success.New York: Greenwood Press.
57.
LortieD. (2009). School principal: Managing in public.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
58.
Malatest & Associates. (2002). Parent and education engagement partnership project: A discussion paper.Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Ministry of Education of British Columbia, Aboriginal Education Enhancements Branch.
59.
McDougallD. E., GaskellJ., FlessaJ., KuglerJ., JangE. E., HerbertM. (2006). Improving student achievement in schools facing challenging circumstances. Final report for the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat, Ministry of Education, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
60.
McKenzieK., & ScheurichJ. (2004). Equity traps: A useful construct for preparing principals to lead schools that are successful with racially diverse students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 601–632.
61.
MinowM. L. (1990). Making all the difference: Inclusion, exclusion, and American law.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
62.
NakagawaK. (2000). Unthreading the ties that bind: Questioning the discourse of parent involvement. Educational Policy, 14(4), 443–472.
63.
National Center for Children in Poverty. (2005). Children in urban areas are increasingly low income.New York: Author.
64.
NoblitG. W., & PinkW. T. (2007a). Introduction: Urban education in the globalizing world. In PinkW. T., & NoblitG. W. (Eds.), International handbook of urban education (pp. xv–xxxvi). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
65.
NoblitG. W., & PinkW. T. (2007b). Preface. In PinkW. T., & NoblitG. W. (Eds.), International handbook of urban education (pp. xi–xiv). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
66.
NogueraP. (1996). Confronting the urban in urban school reform. The Urban Review, 28(1), 1–19.
67.
NogueraP. (2001). Transforming urban schools through investments in the social capital of parents. In SaegertS., ThompsonJ. P., & WarrenM. (Eds.), Social capital and poor communities (pp. 189–212). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
68.
NogueraP. (2004). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education.New York: Teachers College Press.
69.
OakesJ., & RogersJ. (with Lipton, M.). (2006). Learning power: Social inquiry, grassroots organizing, and educational justice.New York: Teachers College Press.
70.
OrfieldG., & GordonN. (2001). Schools more separate: Consequences of a decade of resegregation.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Civil Rights Project.
71.
PalmerJ., SongY., & LuH. (2002). The changing face of poverty in California: State policy update, August 2002.New York: National Center for Children in Poverty.
72.
PayneR. (1996). A framework for understanding poverty.Highlands, TX: aha! Process.
73.
PounderD., & MerrillR. (2001). Job desirability of the high school principalship: A job choice theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 27–57.
74.
PushorD., & MurphyB. (2004). Parent marginalization, marginalized parents: Creating a place for parents on the school landscape. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 221–235.
75.
RoeE. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice.Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
76.
RozaM., CelioM. B., HarveyJ., & WishonS. (2003). A matter of definition: Is there truly a shortage of school principals?Seattle: University of Washington, Center on Reinventing Public Education.
SchutzA. (2006). Home is a prison in the global city: The tragic failure of school-based community engagement strategies. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 691–743.
79.
SkrlaL., ScheurichJ., & JohnsonJ. (2000). Equity-driven achievement-focused school districts: A report on systemic school success in four Texas school districts serving diverse student populations.Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center.
80.
SpillaneJ., HalversonR., & DiamondJ. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.
81.
SmulyanL. (2000). Balancing acts: Women principals at work.Albany: State University of New York Press.
82.
SteinS. (2004). The culture of education policy.New York: Teachers College Press.
83.
StoneC. (Ed.). (1998). Changing urban education.Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
84.
TaylorB. O. (2002, January). The effective schools process: Alive and well. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 375–378.
85.
ThernstromA., & ThernstromS. (2003). No excuses: Closing the racial gap in learning.New York: Simon & Schuster.
86.
ThompsonG. L. (2003). No parent left behind: Strengthening ties between educators and African American parents/guardians. The Urban Review, 35(1), 7–23.
87.
ValenciaR. (Ed.). (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice.London: Falmer Press.
88.
ValenciaR. (2009). A response to Ruby Payne's claim that the deficit thinking model has no scholarly utility. Teachers College Record. Retrieved November 17, 2009, from http://www.tcrecord.org (No. 15691)
