Schools are faced with increasing pressures from declining test scores and outcry from the public to improve the educational system. Efforts to reform the system have varied widely and produced inconsistent results. One school took a different approach by embracing the reform efforts through a systematic change process, led by a transformational leader and guided by a “journey map” to navigate their progress. This study described the steps taken by a Title I elementary lab school as they moved from a failing status to highly successful. Comparisons against state data, aligned with codes emergent from interviews, revealed eight themes essential to effective school change.
BakerD. (2013). Art integration and cognitive development. Journal for Learning Through the Arts: A Research Journal on Arts Integration in Schools and Communities, 9, n1.
2.
CroftS. J.RobertsM. A.StenhouseV. L. (2016). The perfect storm of education reform: High-stakes testing and teacher evaluation. Social Justice, 42, 70.
3.
CubanL. (2012). Standards vs. customization: Finding the balance. Educational Leadership, 69, 10–15.
4.
Darling-HammondL. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
5.
DavidsonB. M.TaylorD. L. (1999). Examining principal succession and teacher leadership in school restructuring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Canada.
6.
DeCuir-GunbyJ. T.MarshallP. L.McCullochA. W. (2011). Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field Methods, 23, 136–155.
7.
DriverC.LevinH. M. (1997). Principal succession in accelerated schools. Paper presented at the First National Accelerated Schools Networking Conference, January 30–February 1, St. Louis, MO.
8.
FraserS. P.BosanquetA. M. (2006). The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it?Studies in Higher Education, 31, 269–284.
9.
FullanM. G.MilesM. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 745–752.
GlatthornA. A.BoscheeF.WhiteheadB. M. (2009). Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
GlesneC. (2015). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. London, England: Pearson.
13.
GratzD. B. (2000). High standards for whom?Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 681–687.
14.
HallingerP. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional to transformational leaders. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 30, 35–48.
15.
HattieJ. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Abingdon, England: Routledge.
16.
HeckR. H.MarcoulidesG. A. (1993). Principal leadership behaviors and school achievement. National Association of Secondary School Principals [NASSP] Bulletin, 77, 20–28.
17.
JacobsH. H. (2004). Getting results with curriculum mapping. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
18.
KastbergD.ChanJ. Y.MurrayG. (2016). Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in science, reading, and mathematics literacy in an international context: First look at PISA 2015 (NCES 2017-048). U.S. department of education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved April 5, 2017 fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
19.
KellerB. (1998). Principal matters. Education Week, 18, 25–27.
20.
KrugS. E. (1993). Leadership craft and the crafting of school leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 240–244.
21.
LabareeD. (2012). Someone has to fail. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
MarzanoR. J. (2002). In search of the standardized curriculum. Principal, 81, 6–9.
23.
Mendez-MorseS. (1991). The principal’s role in the instructional process: Implications for at-risk students. SEDL Issues About Change, 1, 1.
24.
MorseJ. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40, 120–123.
25.
MurphyJ. (1994). Redefining the principalship in restructuring schools. National Association of Secondary School Principals [NASSP] Bulletin, 79, 94–100.
26.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: Trends in academic progress 2012 (NCES 2013 456). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. U.S. Department of Education.
27.
NewmannF. M.WehlageG. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
28.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2017). PISA 2015 results (Volume III): Students’ well-being, PISA. Paris, France: Author. doi:10.1787/9789264273856-en
29.
PortinB. S.ShenJ.WilliamsR. C. (1998). The changing principalship and its impact: Voices from principals. National Association of Secondary School Principals [NASSP] Bulletin, 82, 1–8.
30.
Savin-BadenM.MajorC. H. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Abingdon, England: Routledge.
31.
SheppardB. (1996). Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership. Alberta Journal of Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 325–344.
32.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
TyackD.CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
