Through case studies of 10 elementary schools in Chicago, this article examines principal leadership in low-performing schools. The data include 331 interviews with teachers, administrators, external partners, and others over a 2-year period. Using transformational leadership as a lens, we found that principals in schools that moved off probation in a short period articulated the school vision, provided support and resources to teachers, established collaborative structures and norms, developed commitment to collective goals, and managed the school. Their leadership responses were closely linked to their interpretation of the accountability policy. All the principals centralized decision making. Our study suggests that districts should carefully assign to these schools leaders with appropriate knowledge and skills and reassign ineffective principals given the critical role that principals play in bringing about improvement under pressure.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BassB. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations.New York: Free Press.
2.
BennettA. (2001, April). The history, politics, and theory of action of the Chicago probation policy. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
BrookoverW. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 301–318.
6.
BrookoverW. B., & LezotteL. W. (1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident with changes in student achievement (Occasional Paper No. 17). East Lansing: Michigan State University, East Lansing Institute for Research in Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED181005)
7.
BrykA. S., & SchneiderB. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
8.
BrykA. S., SebringP. B., KerbowD., RollowS., & EastonJ. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for change.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
9.
BurnsJ. M. (1978). Leadership.New York: Harper & Row.
10.
CarlsonR. V. (1996). Refraining and reforming: Perspectives on organization, leadership, and school change.White Plains, NY: Longman.
11.
Center on Education Policy. (2008). Managing more than a thousand remodeling projects: School restructuring in California.Washington, DC: Author.
12.
ChapmanC., & HarrisA. (2004). Improving schools in difficult and challenging contexts: Strategies for improvement. Educational Research, 46(3), 219–228.
13.
CottonK. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
14.
DuFourR., DuFourR., & EakerR. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools.Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
15.
DuFourR., DuFourR., EakerR., & ManyT. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work.Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
16.
DufourR., & EakerR. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
17.
EakerR., DuFourR., & DuFourR. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to become professional learning communities.Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
18.
EdmondsR. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15–27.
19.
EllisT. I. (1984). Motivating teachers for excellence. ERIC Digest, 6. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED259449)
20.
ElmoreR. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership.Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
21.
Enderlin-LampeS. (1997). Shared decision making in schools: Effect on teacher efficacy. Education, 118(1), 150–156.
22.
EvansT. J. (1996). Transformational leadership: Overview of a human resources administrative practice. Unpublished manuscript.
23.
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 December 14, 2009, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v17n7/
24.
FinniganK. S., & O'DayJ. (2003). External support to schools on probation: Getting a leg up?Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
25.
FuhrmanS. H. (1999). The new accountability (CPRE Policy Brief No. RB-27). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
26.
FullanM. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change.New York: Teachers College Press.
27.
FullanM. G. (2008). What's worth fighting for in the principal leadership (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
28.
GilesC. (2006). Transformational leadership in challenging urban elementary schools: A role for parent involvement?Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(3), 257–282.
29.
GlaserB., & StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.New York: Aldine.
30.
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 (pp. 195–222). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
31.
HallingerP., & HeckR. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44.
32.
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: Teachers College.
33.
HessG. A.Jr. (1999). Expectations, opportunity, capacity, and will: The four essential components of Chicago school reform. Educational Policy, 13(4), 494–517.
34.
JacobsonS. L., BrooksS., GilesC., JohnsonL., & YlimakiR. (2007). Successful leadership in three high-poverty urban elementary schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(4), 291–317.
35.
KelleyC., HenemanH., & MilanowskiA. (2000). School-based performance award programs, teacher motivation, and school performance: Findings from a study of three programs.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
36.
KotterJ. P. (1977). Power, dependence, and effective management. Harvard Business Review, 55(4), 125–136.
37.
KotterJ. P. (1996). Leading change.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
38.
LaddH., & ZelliA. (2002). School-based accountability in North Carolina: The responses of school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(4), 494–529.
39.
LashwayL. (1999). Holding schools accountable for achievement. ERIC Digest, 130. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED434381)
40.
LeithwoodK. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498–518.
41.
LeithwoodK., & JantziD. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research, 1996–2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177–199.
42.
LeithwoodK., LouisK. S., AndersonS., & WahlstromK. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
43.
LeithwoodK., & RiehlC. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.Philadelphia: Temple University.
44.
LouisK. S., FebeyK., & SchroederR. (2005). State-mandated accountability in high schools: Teachers’ interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 177–204.
45.
MarksH. M., & PrintyS. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397.
46.
McLaughlinM. W., & TalbertJ. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: Strategic opportunities for meeting the nation's educational goals.Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.
47.
MellahiP., JacksonP., & SparksL. (2002). An exploratory study into failure in successful organizations: The case of Marks and Spencer. British Journal of Management, 13, 15–29.
48.
MilesM. B., & HubermanM. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
MintropH. (2003). The limits of sanctions in low-performing schools: A study of Maryland and Kentucky schools on probation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(3). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ680075)
50.
MintropH., & TrujilloT. M. (2005). Corrective action in low performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(48). Retrieved September 22, 2009, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n48/
51.
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: Jossey-Bass.
52.
NorthouseP. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
O'DayJ. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293–329.
54.
OlsonL. (2004, January 28). States train sights on school districts for interventions. Education Week, 23(20), 1, 21.
55.
OwensR. G. (2004). Organizational behavior in education: Adaptive leadership and school reform (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
56.
RichardA. (2004, January 7). States unable to help all struggling schools. Education Week, 23(16), 19, 23.
57.
RobinsonV. M. J., LloydC. A., & RoweK. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 635–674.
58.
RosenholtzS. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools.New York: Longman.
59.
SebringP. B., & BrykA. S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), 440–443.
60.
SmithW. F., & AndrewsR. L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a difference.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
61.
SpillaneJ. P., DiamondJ. B., BurchP., HallettT., JitaL., & ZoltnersJ. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 15(5), 731–762.
62.
SpillaneJ. P., HalversonR., & DiamondJ. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28,
63.
StawB. M., SandelandsL. E., & DuttonJ. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524.
64.
StewartJ. (2006). Transformational leadership: An evolving concept examined through the works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 54, 1–13.
65.
StollL., & FinkD. (1996). Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement.Buckingham, UK: Open University Press
66.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Evaluation of Title 1 Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE): First-year findings.Washington, DC: Author.
67.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume 3: Accountability under NCLB (interim report).Washington, DC: Author.
68.
VroomV., & JagoA. (2007). The role of situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17–24.
69.
YlimakiR. M., JacobsonS. L., & DrysdaleL. (2007). Making a difference in challenging, high-poverty schools: Successful principals in the USA, England, and Australia. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(4), 361–381.
YuklG., & LepsingerR. (2005). Why integrating the leading and managing role is essential for organizational effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 34(4), 361–375.
