Public schools throughout the United States face increasing pressure to improve student achievement in math and science. As instructional leaders, principals find themselves facing this pressure head on. Drawing from a comprehensive survey of high school principals in the state of Washington (n = 250), the results indicate that a majority of school administrators in Washington had no formal education in math or science. However, an analysis of the principals’ responses suggests that they are exercising leadership in relation to these subjects in their schools. School-level factors appear to explain more of the variation in their leadership in math and science rather than their educational backgrounds. When these factors were controlled for, principals with a math or science background did appear to engage in leadership actions that were different from those without such a background. The article concludes by discussing these results in relation to instructional leadership and leadership preparation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelmanC. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
2.
AndrewsR., & SoderR. (1987). Principal leadership and student achievement. Educational Leadership, 44(6), 9–11.
3.
AudS., HussarW., KenaG., BiancoK., FrohlichL., KempJ., (2011). The condition of education 2011 (NCES Document No. 2011-033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
4.
BallD. L. (1990). Breaking with experience in learning to teach mathematics: The role of a preservice methods course. For the Learning of Mathematics, 10(2), 10–16.
5.
BallD. L. (1991). Teaching mathematics for understanding: What do teachers need to know about subject matter? In KennedyM. (Ed.), Teaching academic subjects to diverse learners (pp. 63–83). New York: Teachers College Press.
6.
BallD. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373–397.
7.
BallD. L. (1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics reforms: What do we think we know and what do we need to learn?Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 500–508.
8.
BallD. L., HillH. C., & BassH. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide?American Educator, 29(1), 14–17, 20–22, 43–46.
9.
BallouD., & PodgurskyM. (1995). What makes a good principal? How teachers assess the performance of principals. Economics of Education Review, 12, 243–252.
10.
Board on Science Education. (2011). Successful K–12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
11.
Board on Science Education. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
12.
BranchG. F., HanushekE. A., & RivkinS. G. (2012). Estimating the effective of leaders on public sector productivity: The case of school principals (NBER Working Paper No. 17803). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
13.
ClarkD., MartorellP., & RockoffJ. E. (2009). School principals and school performance (Working Paper No. 38). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
14.
Darling-HammondL. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392/515
15.
Darling-HammondL., HoltzmanD. L., GatlinS. J., & HeiligJ. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence of teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness.Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
16.
Darling-HammonL., MeyersonD., LaPointeM., & OrrM. T. (2010). Preparing principals for a changing world: Lessons from effective school leadership programs.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
DonovanM. S., & BransfordJ. D. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
18.
DukeD. L. (1987). School leadership and instructional improvement.New York: Random House.
19.
EbertsR., & StoneJ. A. (1988). Student achievement in public schools: Do principals make a difference?Economics of Education Review, 7, 291–299.
20.
EdmondsR. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15–24.
21.
ElfersA. M., PleckiM. L., KnappM. S., YeoG. J., & McGowanM. L. (2007). Teaching math in Washington's high schools: Insights from a survey of teachers in high performing or improving schools.Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
22.
ElmoreR. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
23.
FergusE. (2009). Understanding Latino students’ schooling experiences: The relevance of skin color among Mexican and Puerto Rican high school students. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 339–375.
24.
FieldA. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
25.
FloresA. (2007). Examining disparities in mathematics education: Achievement gap or opportunity gap?High School Journal, 91(1), 29–42.
26.
GamoranA., AndersonC. W., QuirozP. A., SecadaW. G., WilliamsT., & AshmanS. (2003). Transforming teaching in math and science: How schools and districts can support change.New York: Teachers College Press.
27.
GaretM., PorterA., DesimoneL., BirmanB. F., & YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? The results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
28.
GoldhaberD. D., & BrewerD. J. (1997a). Evaluating the effects of teacher degree level on educational performance. In FowlerW. J. (Ed.), Developments in school finance, 1996 (pp. 192–210). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
29.
GoldhaberD. D., & BrewerD. J. (1997b). Why don't schools and teachers seem to matter? Assessing the impact of unobservable on education productivity. Journal of Human Resources, 32(3), 505–523.
30.
GoldhaberD. D., & BrewerD. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129–145.
31.
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(5), 1091–1123.
32.
GuskeyT. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
33.
HallingerP. (2003, November). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–351.
34.
HallingerP. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 1–20.
35.
HallingerP., & HeckR. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44.
36.
HillH. C., RowanB., & BallD. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.
37.
JohnsonJ., ArumiA. M., & OttA. (2006). The insiders: How principals and superintendents see public education today.New York: Public Agenda. Retrieved from http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/rc0604.pdf
38.
KinachB. (2002). A cognitive strategy for developing pedagogical content knowledge in the secondary mathematics course: Toward a model of effective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 51–71.
39.
KlineP. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Rout-ledge.
40.
KnappM. S., CoplandM. A., & TalbertJ. E. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective tools for school and district leaders.Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
41.
KnappM. S., & PleckiM. L. (2001). Investing in the renewal of urban science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(10), 1089–1100.
42.
LangdonD., McKittrickG., BeedeD., KhanB., & DomsM. (2011). STEM: Good jobs now and for the future.Washington, DC: Economics and Statistics Administration.
43.
LeithwoodK. A., & LouisK. S. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
44.
LevineA. (2005). Educating school leaders.New York: Education Schools Project.
45.
LittleJ. W. (1995). Contested ground: The basis of teacher leadership in two restructuring high schools. Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 47–63.
46.
LittleJ. W. (2003). Constructions of teacher leadership in three periods of policy and reform activism. School Leadership and Management, 23(4), 401–419.
47.
LochmillerC. R., HugginsK. S., & Acker-HocevarM. (2012). Preparing leaders for math and science: Three alternatives to traditional preparation. Planning & Changing, 43(1), 198–220.
48.
Loucks-HorsleyS., LoveN., StilesK. E., MundryS., & HewsonP. W. (Eds.). (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
49.
LouisK. S., LeithwoodK. A., WahlstromK. L., & AndersonS. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
50.
McLaughlinM., & TalbertJ. E. (2002). Reforming districts. In HightowerA., KnappM., MarshJ., & McLaughlinM. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 173–192). New York: Teachers College Press.
51.
MillerD. C., & WarrenL. K. (2011). Comparative indicators of education in the United States and other G-8 countries: 2011 (NCES Document No. 2012-007). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
52.
MonkD. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125–145.
53.
National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future.Washington, DC: Author.
54.
NelsonB. S. (1997). Lenses on learning: How administrator's ideas about mathematics, learning, and teaching influence their approaches to action in an era of reform.Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
55.
NelsonB. S. (1999). Building new knowledge by thinking: How administrators can learn what they need to know about mathematics education reform.Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
56.
NelsonB. S., & SassiA. (2003). Shifting approaches to supervision: The case of mathematics supervision. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(4), 553–584.
57.
OakesJ. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education, 16(2), 153–166.
58.
ReevesD. B. (2008). Reframing teacher leadership to improve your school.Alexandria, VA: ASCS.
59.
RivkinS. G., HanushekE. A., & KainJ. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.
60.
SchneiderR. M., & PlasmanK. (2011). Science teacher learning progressions. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 530–565.
61.
ShermanA., & MacDonaldL. (2008). Instructional leadership in elementary school science. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 12(2). Retrieved from http://www.ucalgary.ca/iejll/sherman
62.
ShymanskyJ. A., & AldridgeB. G. (1982, November). The teacher crisis in secondary school science and mathematics. Educational Leadership, 40(2), 61–62.
63.
SpillaneJ. P., DiamondJ. B., WalkerL. J., HalversonR., & JitaL. (2001). Urban school leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying and activating resources in an undervalued school subject. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 918–940.
64.
SteinM. K., & D'AmicoL. (2000, April). How subjects matter in school leadership.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
65.
TheodardisG., & BrooksJ. S. (Eds.). (2012). What every principal needs to know to create equitable and excellent schools.New York: Teachers College Press.
66.
ThurowL. (1992). Head to head: The coming economic battle among Japan, Europe, and America.New York: Murrow.
67.
WallaceJ. D., NesbitC. R., & MillerC. S. (1999). Six leadership models for professional development in science and mathematics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(4), 247–268.
