This cross-case study utilizes the publically available data of three urban low-performing, low-socioeconomic-status districts designated as districts in need of improvement under No Child Left Behind legislation. Despite multiple interventions aimed at improving student learning, these and other districts remain in corrective action. Critics attribute responsibility for such low-performing schools in part to leadership preparation programs and their failure to prepare leaders who are capable of improving student learning. Current research points to the value of preparation programs focusing on the development of instructional leaders and a curriculum that focuses on improving student achievement (Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, LaPointe, & Orr, 2010). We argue that preparation programs must prepare leaders who can ensure that a well-articulated curriculum aligned to the state standards exists and, more important, is implemented effectively.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Institute for Research. (2008, September). States work hard to implement NCLB's “state systems of support,” requirement to help low-performing schools, but face challenges: Limitations in staff, political support and expertise in the areas of English language learners and special education are cited by state officials. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/news/pr/air_schoolHelp.aspx
2.
BalfanzR., & Mac IverD. (2000). Transforming high-poverty urban middle schools into strong learning institutions: Lessons from the first five years of the Talent Development Middle School. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk5(1/2), 137–158.
3.
BarnettD. (2004). School leadership preparation programs: Are they preparing tomorrow's leaders?Education, 124(1), 121–129.
4.
BerryJ., & BeachR. (2006). K-12 leadership and the educational administration curriculum: A theory of preparation. Retrieved from http://cnx.org/content/m13772/latest
5.
BorbaM. F. (2009). What's teaching got to do with it?Leadership, 38(5), 16–37.
6.
BrownK. M., AnfaraV. A.Jr., & RoneyK. (2004). Student achievement in high performing, suburban middle schools and low performing, urban middle schools. Education & Urban Society, 36(4), 428–456.
7.
Browne-FerrignoT. (2003). Becoming a principal: Role conception, initial socialization, role-identity transformation, purposeful engagement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 468–503.
8.
CalkinsA., GuentherW., BelfioreG., & LashD. (2007). The turnaround challenge: Why America's best opportunity to dramatically improve student achievement lies in our worst-performing schools.Boston: Mass Insight Education & Research Institute.
9.
CityE. A., ElmoreR. F., FiarmanS. E., & TeitelL. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning.Boston: Harvard University Press.
10.
Commission on School Leader Preparation in Illinois Colleges and Universities. (2006, August). School leader preparation: A blueprint for change.Springfield, IL: Illinois Board of Higher Education.
11.
DanzigA. B., & ChenR. (2007, November). Learner-centered leadership: School and university partnership for the preparation and professional development of learner-centered leaders. Paper presented at the convention of the University Council for Educational Administration, Alexandria, VA.
12.
Darling-HammondL. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future.New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
Darling-HammondL., MeyersonD., LaPointeM., OrrM. T. (2010). Preparing principals for a changing world: Lessons from effective school leadership programs.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
DoolittleG., & BrowneE. G. (2008). A case study in accountability, district monitoring, and school improvement. In PappaR., AchillesC. M., & AlfordB. (Eds.), NCPEA leadership on the frontlines: Changes in preparation and practice, the 2008 NCPEA yearbook (ch. 15). Lancaster, PA: Proactive Publications.
15.
DuFourR. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”?Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6–11.
16.
ElmoreR. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership.Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
17.
ElmoreR. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education.Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
EnglishF., & PapaR. (2009). Restoring human agency to educational administration: Status and strategies.Lancaster, PA: ProActive.
22.
FirestoneW. A., ManginM. M., MartinezM. C., & PolovskyT. (2005). Leading coherent professional development: A comparison of three districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41. Retrieved from http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/41/3/413
GoertzM., & DuffyM. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and accountability programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1) 4–11.
28.
GraczewskiC., KnudsonJ., & HoltzmanD. J. (2009). Instructional leadership in practice: What does it look like, and what influence does it have?Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14(1), 72–96.
29.
HaleE. L., & MoormanH. N. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national perspective on policy and program innovations.Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
30.
Hayes-JacobsH. (1997). Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum and assessment K-12.Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Development.
31.
KnappM. S., SwinnertonJ. A., CoplandM. A., & Monpas-HuberJ. (2006, October). Data-informed leadership in education.Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
32.
LattimerP. E., SchonyersD., & AronsD. (2006, October). New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJQSAC). Presentation to the School Boards Association, Atlantic City, NJ.
33.
LeithwoodK. (2009, October). Leadership for turning schools around and closing the achievement gap. Presentation to the Turnaround Leadership Network, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ.
34.
LeithwoodK., HarrisA., & StraussT. (2009). Leadership for turning schools around. Manuscript submitted for publication.
35.
LeithwoodK., & JantziD. (2005, April). A review of transformational school leadership research 1996–2005. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
36.
LeithwoodK., LouisK. S., AndersonS., & WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning.Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
37.
LeithwoodK., StraussT., & AndersonS. E. (2007). District contributions to school leaders’ sense of efficacy: A qualitative analysis. Journal of School Leadership, 17(6), 735–770.
MarzanoR. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
40.
Mid-Atlantic Comprehensive Center. (2007, June). Finding the path: I. Analyzing school needs assessment data to determine technical assistance. Presentation to the NCLB School Improvement Committee, Trenton, NJ.
41.
Mid-Atlantic Comprehensive Center. (2008, February). Finding the path: II. From needs assessment data to support for restructuring schools. Presentation to the NCLB School Improvement Committee, Trenton, NJ.
42.
MilsteinM. M. (1993). Changing the way we prepare educational leaders.Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
43.
MilsteinM. M., & KruegerJ. (1997). Improving educational administration preparation programs: What we have learned over the past decade. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 100–116.
44.
MurphyJ. (1992). Leadership preparation: Refraining the education of school administrators.Newbury, CA: Corwin Press.
MurphyJ., & MeyersC. V. (2008). Turning around failing schools: Leadership lessons from the organizational sciences.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
47.
National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration. (1987). Leaders for America's schools.Tempe, AZ: University Council for Educational Administration.
48.
National Education Association. (2008, October). 2008–09 adequate yearly progress (AYP) results: Many more schools fail in most states. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/16107.htm
49.
New Jersey Department of Education. (n.d.-a). Collaborative assessment for planning and achievement (CAPA). Retrieved from http://www.state.NJ.us/education/capa/
NewmanF. M., & WehlageG. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators.Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED387925)
53.
NicolaidouM., & AinscowM. (2005). Understanding failing schools: Perspectives from the inside. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(3), 229–248.
54.
OrfieldG., & LeeC. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality.Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project Harvard University.
55.
RittelH., & WebberM. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Science, 4, 155–209.
56.
SundermanG. L., & OrfieldG. (2007). Do states have the capacity to meet the NCLB mandates?Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 137–139.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000, September). Memorandum and guidance on identifying schools and school districts in need of improvement or corrective action when moving from transitional to final assessments. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/assessmemo.html
WagnerT. (2003, November). Beyond testing: The 7 disciplines for strengthening instruction. Education Week, 28–30.
61.
WalkerE. M., & GutmoreD. (2000). The quest for equity and excellence in education: A study of whole school reform in New Jersey special needs districts. Retrieved from http://www.state.NJ.us/education/abbotts/res/shu/
62.
WangM. C., HaertelG. D., & WalbergH. J. (1994, December/January). Synthesis of research: What helps students learn?Educational Leadership, pp. 74–79.
63.
WigginsG., & McTigheJ. (1998). Understanding by design.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
64.
WigginsG., & McTigheJ. (2007). Schooling by design: Mission, action, and achievement.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
65.
YinR. A. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
