Recent reform initiatives, such as the Title I School Improvement Grants and Race to the Top, recommended a principal change to jump-start school turnaround. Yet, few educational researchers have examined principal change as way to improve schools in a state of systematic reform; furthermore, no large-scale quantitative study has determined the immediate or longitudinal impact of principal change on school performance. Using 9 years of school performance data, this study examined the impact of principal change on elementary schools’ scholastic achievement in reading and mathematics. Specifically, it examined whether a principal change was associated with initial improvement and longitudinal improvement of school reading and mathematics achievement. Findings suggest that principal changes did not substantially influence initial student achievement or school performance trajectory. Furthermore, these findings suggest that making a principal change does not predispose a school for improving school performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AustinG. R. (1979). Exemplary schools and the search for effectiveness. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 10–12.
2.
BalfanzR., BridgelandJ. M., MooreL. A., & FoxJ. H. (2010). Building a grad nation: Progress and challenge in ending the high school dropout epidemic.Baltimore: Civic Enterprises.
3.
BalfanzR., & LegtersN. (2004). Locating the dropout crisis.Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
4.
BassB. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership.New York: Free Press.
5.
BormanG. D., HewesG. M., OvermanL. T., & BrownS. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125–230.
6.
BrookoverW. B., & LezotteL. W. (1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident with changes in student achievement.East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching.
7.
BrookoverW. B., & SchneiderJ. M. (1975). Academic environments and elementary school achievement. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 9(1), 82–91.
8.
BrykA. S., SebringP. B., AllensworthE., LuppescuS., & EastonJ. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
BurnsJ. M. (1978). Leadership.New York: Harper & Row.
10.
Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century.Hyattsville, MD: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.
11.
ColemanJ. S., CampbellE. Q., HobsonC. J., McPartlandJ., MoodA. M., WeinfeldF. D. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
12.
ComerJ. P. (2004). Leave no child behind: Preparing today's youth for tomorrow's world.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
CooleyV. E., & ShenJ. (2000). Factors influencing applying for urban principalship. Education and Urban Society, 32(4), 443–454.
14.
CrossC., & RiceR. (2000). The role of the principal as instructional leader in a standards-driven system. NASSP Bulletin, 84(620), 61–65.
15.
Darling-HammondL., LaPointeM., MeyersonD. E., OrrM. T., & CohenC. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world.Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
16.
DatnowA., BormanG. D., StringfieldS., OvermanT., & CastellanoM. (2003). Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts: Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 143–170.
17.
DillonS. (2011, February 8). U.S. plan to replace principals hits snag: Who will step in?New York Times, p. A15.
18.
DoranH. C., & DruryD. W. (2002). Evaluating success: KIPP educational program evaluation.Alexandria, VA: New American Schools.
19.
DukeD. L. (2007). Keys to sustaining successful school turnaround.Charlottesville, VA: Darden-Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education.
20.
DukeD. L. (2010). Differentiating school leadership: Facing the challenges of practice.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
21.
DukeD. L., & SalmonowiczM. J. (2010). Key decisions of a first-year “turnaround” principal. Educational Management, Administration, and Leadership, 38(1), 33–58.
22.
DukeD. L., TuckerP. D., SalmonowiczM. J., & LevyM. K. (2007). How comparable are the perceived challenges facing principals of low-performing schools?International Studies in Educational Administration, 35(1), 3–21.
23.
EdmondsR. (1977). Search for effective schools: The identification and analysis of city schools that are instructionally effective for poor children.Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
24.
FelchJ., SongJ., & SmithD. (2010, August 14). Who's teaching L.A.'s kids?Los Angeles Times.
25.
FleishmanE. A., MumfordM. D., ZaccaroS. J., LevinK. Y., KorotkinA. L., & HeinM. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245–287.
26.
FriedmanM. (1955). The role of government in public education. In SoloR. A. (Ed.), Economics and the public interest.New Brunswick, NJ: University of Rutgers Press.
27.
FullerE., & YoungM. D. (2009). Tenure and retention of newly hired principals in Texas.Austin, TX: Texas High School Project.
28.
GatesS. M., RingelJ. S., SantibanezL., RossK. E., and ChungC. H. (2003). Who is leading our schools? An overview of school administrators and their careers.MR-1697-EDU. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
29.
GriffithJ. (1999). The school leadership/school climate relation: Identification of school configurations associated with change in principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(2), 267–291.
30.
GrantG. (1988). The world we created at Hamilton High.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
HallingerP., & HeckR. H. (1996). The principal's role in school effectiveness: An assessment of methodological progress, 1980–1995. In LeithwoodK. (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 723–783). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kulwer Academic.
32.
HartA. (1992). The social and organizational influence of principals: Evaluating principals in context. Peabody Journal of Education, 68(1), 37–57.
33.
HeckR. H., & MayorR. A. (1993). School characteristics, school academic indicators and student outcomes: Implications for policies to improve schools. Journal of Education Policy, 8, 143–154.
34.
HermanR., DawsonP., DeeT., GreeneJ., MaynardR., & ReddingS. (2008). Turning around chronically low performing schools.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
35.
HoyA. W., & HoyW. K. (2003). Instructional leadership: A learning-centered guide.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
36.
HoyW. K., & TarterC. J. (1995). Administrators solving the problems of practice: Decision-making concepts, cases, and consequences.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
37.
JohnsonJ. F., & AseraR. (Eds.) (1999). Hope for urban education: A study of nine high-performing, high-poverty, urban elementary schools.Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center.
38.
KelleyC., & ShawJ. J. (2009). Comprehensive leadership development: A portrait of programs. In YoungM. D., GrowG. M., MurphyJ., & OgawaR. T. (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of school leaders (pp. 499–514). New York: Routledge.
39.
KnoeppelR. C., & RinehartJ. S. (2008). Student achievement and principal quality: Explaining the relationship. Journal of School Leadership, 18(5), 501–527.
40.
KotlowitzA. (1991). There are no children here: The story of two boys growing up in the other America.New York: Random House.
41.
KozolJ. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools.New York: Crown.
42.
LeithwoodK., & JantziD. (1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 679–706.
43.
LeithwoodK., & JantziD. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research 1996–2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177–199.
44.
LeithwoodK., Seashore-LouisK., AndersonS., & WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: A review of research for the learning from leadership project.New York: Wallace Foundation.
45.
MatthewsP., & SammonsP. (2004). Improvement through inspection: An evaluation of the impact of Ofsted's work.London: Office of Standards in Education.
46.
MatthewsP., & SammonsP. (2005). Survival of the weakest: The differential improvement of schools causing concern in England. London Review of Education, 3(2), 159–176.
47.
MaxwellL. A. (2009, December 2). Stimulus rules on “turnarounds” shift: Stimulus guidelines changed for turning around schools. Education Week, 29(13), 1, 19.
48.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED226006)
49.
NorthouseP. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
Office for Standards in Education. (1997). From failure to success.London: Author.
51.
OrrM., BergB., ShoreR., & MeierE. (2008). Putting the pieces together: Leadership for change in low-performing urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 40(6), 670–693.
52.
OrrM., KingC., & LaPointeM. (2010). Districts developing leaders: Lessons on consumer actions and program approaches from eight urban districts.Boston: Education Development Center.
53.
PayneC. M. (2008). So much reform so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.
54.
PicucciA. C., BrownsonA., KahlertR., & SobelA. (2002). Driven to succeed: High-performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle schools.Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center.
55.
PurkeyS. C., & SmithM. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 426–452.
56.
RaudenbushS. W., & BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57.
RavitchD. (2000). Left back: A century of school reforms.New York: Simon & Schuster.
58.
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(5), 635–674.
59.
RowanB., BossertS. T., & DwyerD. C. (1983). Research on effective schools: A cautionary note. Educational Researcher, 12(4), 24–31.
60.
SammonsP. (2007). School effectiveness and equity: Making connections. A review of school effectiveness and improvement research—Its implications for practitioners and policy makers.Berkshire, UK: CfBT Education Trust.
61.
SteinerL., & HasselE. A. (2011). Using competencies to improve school turnaround principal success.Charlottesville: University of Virginia's Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education.
62.
StewartB. (2010). A look at the fuss over value-added teacher data. Education Week, 30(9).
63.
StogdillR. M. (1949). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 25, 35–71.
64.
StollL., & FinkD. (1998). The cruising school: The unidentified ineffective school. In StollL., & MyersK. (Eds.), No quick fixes (pp. 189–206). London: Falmer Press.
65.
StringfieldS., ReynoldsD., & SchafferE. C. (2008). Improving secondary students’ academic achievement through a focus on reform reliability: 4- and 9- year findings from the High Reliability Schools Project. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19, 409–428.
66.
SupovitzJ. A., & ChristmanJ. B. (2005). Small learning communities that actually learn: Lessons for school leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 649–651.
67.
TaggartB., & SammonsP. (1999). Evaluating the impact of a raising school standards initiative. In BoskerR., CreemersB., & StringfieldS. (Eds.), Enhancing educational excellence, equity and efficiency: Evidence from evaluations of systems and schools in change (pp. 137–166). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
68.
TeddlieC., & ReynoldsD. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research.London: Falmer Press.
69.
TeddlieC., & StringfieldS. (1985). A differential analysis of effectiveness in middle and low socioeconomic status schools. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 20(2), 38–44.
70.
TeddlieC., & StringfieldS. (1993). Schools make a difference: Lessons learned from a 10-year study of school effects.New York: Teachers College Press.
71.
TyackD. B., & CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
72.
VanderhaarJ., MunozM., & RodoskyR. (2006). Leadership as accountability for learning: The effects of school poverty, teacher experience, previous achievement, and principal preparation programs on student achievement. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 19, 17–33.
73.
WahlstromK., LouisK. S., LeithwoodK., & AndersonS. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning.Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
74.
WatersT., MarzanoR., & McNultyB. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement.Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Regional Educational Library.
75.
WhitakerK. S. (2001). Where are the principal candidates: Perceptions of superintendents. NASSP Bulletin, 85, 82–92.
76.
WhitakerK., & VogelL. (2005). Joining the ranks: Opportunities and obstacles in obtaining principal positions. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18, 3–19.
77.
WimpelbergR. K., TeddlieC., & StringfieldS. (1989). Sensitivity to context: The past and future of effective schools research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25, 82–107.
