Literature in the field of school leadership substantiates principals‘ influence on student achievement. Less clarity is available concerning principals’ influence on school turnaround or the competencies needed for principals to effectively engage in and sustain the turnaround of low-performing schools. This study seeks to illuminate principal competencies that support an individual's ability to influence turnaround as evidenced by increased student achievement. We analyzed behavioral event interviews conducted with 19 principals whose schools experienced a rapid increase in student achievement. This sample is the successful 10% of a population of 200 principals who each attempted to lead a turnaround. From the interview data, we derived seven competencies that capture the specific characteristics and actions of principals leading turnaround. Our research provides an initial framework for the actions, behaviors, and dispositions of successful turnaround principals. Results of this study suggest ways to improve the selection and development of turnaround principals.
AbeY., WeinstockP., ChanV., MeyersC., GerdemanD., & BrandtW. C. (2015). Exploring how methodological decisions affect the variability of schools identified as beating the odds (REL 2015–064). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest.
2.
Browne-FerrignoT., & MuthR. (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role socialization, professional development, and capacity building. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 468–494.
3.
Browne-FerrignoT., & MuthR. (2009). Candidates in educational leadership graduate programs. In YoungM. D., CrowG. M., MurphyJ., & OgawaR. T. (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of school leaders (pp. 195–224). New York: Routledge.
4.
BruggencateG., LuytenH., ScheerensJ., & SleegersP. (2012). Modeling the influence of school leaders on student achievement: How can school leaders make a difference?48(4), 699–732.
5.
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, MA: Mass Insight Education & Research Institute.
CliffordM., Baxter-LaufferH., CondonC., MenonR., Brown-SimsM., & WeberG. (2012). Guidebook for distinguishing the right leader for your school.Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
8.
DukeD. L. (2015). Leadership for low-performing schools: A step-by-step guide to the school turnaround process.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
9.
FlanaganJ. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychology Bulletin, 51, 327–358.
10.
HallingerP., & HeckR. (1998). Exploring the principals' role in school effectiveness, 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157–191.
11.
HermanR., DawsonP., DeeT., GreeneJ., MaynardR., ReddingS., & DarwinM. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-4020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguides.
12.
HermanR., GatesS. M., Chavez-HerreriasE. R., & HarrisM. (2016). School leadership interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act: Volume I—A review of the evidence base, initial findings.Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
13.
HermannK., KommA., McPhersonJ., LambsdorffM., & KelnerS. (2011). Return on leadership: Competencies that generate growth.Boston, MA: McKinsey & Co.
14.
HittD. H., & MeyersC. V. (2017). Promising leadership practices for rapid school improvement that lasts.Sacramento, CA: Center on School Turnaround at WestEd.
15.
HittD. H., & PlayerD. W. (2018). Identifying and predicting effective leader practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools.
16.
HittD. H., & TuckerP.D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–569. doi:10.3102/0034654315614911
HoA. D. (2008). The problem with “proficiency”: Limitations of statistics and policy under No Child Left Behind. Educational Researcher, 37(6), 351–360.
19.
Le FlochK. C., ButlerA., & BarbourC. (2017). Everything but the kitchen sink: How an abundance of concurrent efforts thwarts school improvement. In MeyersC.V., & DarwinM. (Eds.) Enduring Myths That Inhibit School Turnaround.Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
20.
LeithwoodK. (2012). Ontario Leadership Framework with a Discussion of the Leadership Foundations.Ontario: The Institute for Education Leadership, OISE.
21.
LeithwoodK., HarrisA., & StraussT. (2010). Leading school turnaround: How successful school leaders transform low performing schools.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
22.
LeithwoodK., JantziD., CoffinG., & WilsonP. (1996). Preparing school leaders: What works?Journal of School Leadership, 6(3), 316–342.
23.
LeithwoodK., LouisK. S., AndersonS., & WahlstromK. (2004). How Leadership Influences Student Learning.New York: The Wallace Foundation.
24.
McClellandD. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for “Intelligence.”American Psychologist, 28(1): 1–14.
25.
McClellandD. C. (1998). Identifying competencies with behavioral-event interviews. Psychological Science, 9(5), 331–339.
26.
MeyersC. V., & HittD. H. (2017). School turnaround principals: What does initial research literature suggest they are doing to be successful?Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 22(1), 38–56.
27.
MeyersC. V., LindsayJ., CondonC., & WanY. (2012). A statistical approach to identifying schools demonstrating substantial improvements in student learning. What does it mean to be a school in need of turnaround? [Special Issue]. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 17(1), 1–22. DOI:10.1080/10824669.2012.636703.
28.
MeyersC. V., & SmylieM. (2017). The myths of school turnaround policy and practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools.
29.
MotowidloS. J., CarterG. W., DunnetteM. D., TippinsN., WernerS., BurnettJ. R., & VaughanM. J. (1992). Studies of the structured behavioral interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 571–587.
30.
MurphyJ., & MeyersC. V. (2008). Turning around failing schools: Leadership lessons from the organizational sciences.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
31.
NicholsS. L., GlassG. V., & BerlinerD. C. (2012). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Updated analyses with NAEP data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(20). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1048
32.
PayneC. P. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
33.
OliphantG. C., HansenK., OliphantB. J. (2008). Predictive validity of a behavioral event interview technique. Marketing Management Journal, 18(2), 93–105.
34.
RonanW. W., & LathamG. P. (1974). The reliability and validity of the critical incident technique: A closer look. Studies in Personnel Psychology, 6, 53–64.
35.
SmithC. P. (Ed.). (1992). Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis.New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
SpencerL. M., & SpencerS. M. (1993). Competence at work.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
