Spring 2008
Journal for Effective Schools research practice policies
The Journal for Effective Schools
Spring 2008
Volume 7, Number 1
In This Issue Articles Merit and Achievement in the Post-Modern World
Allan Ornstein
Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools
William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan
The Effective Schools Correlate - Instructional Leadership: San Diego’s Application
John J. Marshak
Using Effective Schools Research to Promote Culturally Competent Leadership Practice
Karen S. Crum and Whitney H. Sherman
Our Mission The Journal for Effective Schools provides educators and administrators involved or interested in the Effective Schools Process with the opportunity to share their research, practice, policies, and expertise with others.
Internships: Building Contextual Relevancy for Improved Instruction
William G. Cunningham and Whitney H. Sherman Volume 7, Number 1
Book Review Class Counts: Education, Inequality, and the Shrinking Middle Class Author Allan Ornstein
William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan
Published by the Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness College of Education Idaho State University
Journal for Effective Schools
Spring 2008 GUEST EDITOR William A. Owings, Old Dominion University ASSOCIATE EDITOR Susan Jenkins, Idaho State University ASSISTANT EDITOR Charles Zimmerly, Idaho State University PRODUCTION EDITOR Vicki Fanning, Idaho State University EDITORIAL BOARD William J. Banach, Banach, Banach and Cassidy, Inc. Ben A. Birdsell, Association for Effective Schools, Inc. Anthony Bisciglia, The Effective Schools Report Gordon Cawelti, Retired – Educational Research Service Janet H. Chrispeels, University of California – San Diego Tom C. Farley, Effective Schools Consultant Ivan Fitzwater, Management Development Institute Hal Guthrie, Hal Guthrie and Associates, Inc. Ronald H. Heck, University of Hawaii Dianne Lane, Southeast Center for Effective Schools Lawrence W. Lezotte, Effective Schools Products, Ltd. Judith March, Effective Resources Associates, Inc. Jerry Mathews, Mississippi State University T. C. Mattocks, Bellingham Public Schools (Massachusetts) Deborah McDonald, International Center for Effective Schools Steve Nelson, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory William A. Owings, Old Dominion University John Pisapia, Florida Atlantic University Robert E. Sudlow, Association for Effective Schools, Inc. John Steffens, University of Oklahoma M. Donald Thomas, School Management Study Group Larry Vandel, Vandel and Associates
Volume 7, Number 1
Journal for Effective Schools
s e l ic e t r A ssu r o 8I f l l a C ll 200 SUBMISSION DEADLINE for the Fall 2008 Issue: July 1, 2008. Fa Detailed information concerning the submission of manuscripts can be found on the Internet at http://icee.isu.edu Articles for potential publication in the Journal for Effective Schools may be submitted on an on-going basis to: Susan Jenkins, Associate Editor Journal for Effective Schools Intermountain Center for Effective Schools Idaho State University 921 South 8th Avenue, Stop 8019 Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8019
Volume 7, Number 1
Spring 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS Aim and Scope - Correlates of Effective Schools ...................................................................................... 2 In This Issue ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan
Dedication ............................................................................................................................................5 William A. Owings
Articles Merit and Achievement in the Post-Modern World..............................................................................7 Allan Ornstein
Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools ..........16 William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan
The Effective Schools Correlate - Instructional Leadership: San Diego's Application........................36 John J. Marshak
Using Effective Schools Research to Promote Culturally Competent Leadership Practice ................46 Karen S. Crum and Whitney H. Sherman
Internships: Building Contextual Relevancy for Improved Instruction................................................62 William G. Cunningham and Whitney H. Sherman
Book Review Class Counts: Education, Inequality, and the Shrinking Middle Class Author - Allan Ornstein ................................................................................................................74 William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan
1
Journal for Effective Schools
AIM and SCOPE The Journal for Effective Schools publishes original contributions in the following areas: ●
Research Practice __ Empirical studies focusing on the results of applied educational research specifically related to the Effective Schools Process.
●
Educational Practices __ Descriptions of the use of the Effective Schools Process in classrooms, schools, and school districts to include instructional effectiveness, evaluation, leadership, and policy and governance.
●
Preparation of Educational Personnel __ Research and practice related to the initial and advanced preparation of teachers, administrators, and other school personnel including staff development practices based on the Effective Schools Process.
●
Other __ Scholarly reviews of research, book reviews, and other topics of interest to educators seeking information on the Effective Schools Process.
CORRELATES OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ●
A clearly stated and focused mission on learning for all __ The group (faculty, administration, parents) shares an understanding of and a commitment to the instructional goals, priorities, assessment, procedures, and personal and group accountability. Their focus is always, unequivocally, on the student.
●
A safe and orderly environment for learning __ The school provides a purposeful, equitable, businesslike atmosphere that encourages, supports, allows mistakes, and is free of fear. School is a place that does no harm to developing psyches and spirits.
●
Uncompromising commitment to high expectations for all __ Those who are leaders empower others to become leaders who believe and demonstrate that all students can attain mastery of essential skills. This commitment is shared by professionals who hold high expectations of themselves.
●
Instructional leadership __ Although initially coming from the principal, teacher, or administrator, the goal is to include all participants as instructional leaders as their knowledge expands as a result of staff development. New insights excite and inspire. In the accountable learning community, everyone is a student and all can be leaders.
●
Opportunity to learn is paramount __ Time is allocated for specific and free-choice tasks. Students take part in making decisions about goals and tasks.
●
Frequent monitoring of progress __ Effective schools evaluate the skills and achievements of all students and teachers. No intimidation is implied. Rather, monitoring often is individualized, with improvement in learning as the goal.
●
Enhanced communication __ Includes home, school, and community coming together as partners in learning for all.
* Adapted from Phi Delta Kappa International 2
Volume 7, Number 1
Spring 2008
In This Issue William Owings and Leslie Kaplan Guest Editors
The Spring 2008 issue of the Journal for Effective Schools (JES) marks a significant change as Gene Davis, Executive Editor since 2002, retired in December 2007. This issue is dedicated to the leadership and sheparding he has provided to this Journal and to the Effective Schools movement. Typically, JES has placed articles alphabetically by the lead author's name. This issue departs from that tradition to allow the accepted articles' natural segue and flow to build a coherent theme. We start with a dedication to Gene Davis and his impact on this Journal and on education at large. Next, Allan Ornstein presents a thought-provoking essay based on his latest book, Class Counts: Education, Inequality, and the Shrinking Middle Class. Ornstein's essay, Merit and Achievement in the Post-Modern World, compels readers to reflect on the implications of the widening gaps in wealth and opportunity in the nation's schools. As Ornstein writes, "Part of the search for balance (or fairness) is to adopt an uncompromising commitment to produce more effective schools in lower-class communities." This thought takes us back to the genesis of the Effective Schools outlier studies. The second article by William Owings and Leslie Kaplan, Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools, provides a focused overview of research supporting the seven Effective Schools Correlates identified on the JES website and how the research can be translated into effective schoolhouse practice. A more detailed monograph on this subject, Effective Schools Movement: History, Analysis, and Applications, is available through the JES website. Next, John Marshak reviews the research behind San Diego's efforts to enhance instructional leadership for systemic change. San Diego presents a clear example of a school system's concerted endeavor to transform how school leadership impacts classroom instruction and student achievement. Reviewing this school district's efforts embodies virtually all of the Effective Schools Correlates. No one doubts that schools have become more diverse since Ron Edmonds, Larry Lezotte, and Richard Brookover began writing about the Effective Schools process. With the demand for schools to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) comes the challenge of meeting diversity issues successfully. Culturally competent leadership requires serious and immediate attention from schools and educational leadership programs. Karen Crum and Whitney Sherman's article, Using Effective Schools Research to Promote Culturally Competent Leadership Practice, addresses these issues well. William Cunningham and Whitney Sherman's article, Internships: Building Contextual Relevancy for Improved Instruction, builds an excellent case for the importance of practical experiences woven through the internship during leadership development. It calls for even greater authenticity and connection of theory to practice grounded in the Effective Schools tenets. 3 William Owings and Leslie Kaplan
Journal for Effective Schools
Finally, the Spring issue comes full circle with a book review of Allan Ornstein's book, Class Counts: Education, Inequality, and the Shrinking Middle Class, from which he derived this issue's first article. Ornstein maintains that education may no longer be the "great equalizer." He energetically and persuasively argues that given today's economic and social realities, public schools may no longer provide talented, motivated, and hardworking students with knowledge and social mobility essential to overcome poverty. Effective schools are proactive in meeting student needs. The earliest Effective Schools studies examined high achieving schools with high-needs populations. Ornstein's book, its provocative thesis and overwhelming data, should be a required discussion topic in faculty meetings and university classrooms if schools are to be truly effective in meeting the needs of increasingly disenfranchised and high-needs students. Good reading!
4 In This Issue
Volume 7, Number 1
Spring 2008
Dedication William Owings Guest Editor
This issue of the Journal for Effective Schools is dedicated to Dr. E. E. (Gene) Davis, the Journal's founding editor. Gene is a practitioner and an academic−−a rare commodity today. From a practitioner standpoint, Gene is a former district superintendent of two large school districts in Alaska and Virginia, ranging in size from 36,000-48,000 students. During his superintendent tenures, these districts received the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) Leadership for Learning Award, the NEA School Bell Award, and the Golden Medallion Award for the National Public Relations Association. Davis has personally been recognized with the ACT-SO Award from the NAACP; the Eaton Award, the highest award given in Idaho for excellence in Idaho economic education; and the United Way Gold Award. Wal-Mart also honored him with a literacy grant for educators who are providing outstanding service in literacy. From an academic perspective, since 1992, Davis served as a professor in the Graduate Department of Educational Leadership and Instructional Design in the College of Education at Idaho State University (ISU) where he taught doctoral level courses preparing principals, supervisors, and superintendents for leadership in education. He also served as the Director of the Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness (ICEE) at ISU. The ICEE works with schools and school districts in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana. School districts partner with the ICEE, collaborating on such issues as the Effective Schools Process, staff development for improved student achievement, leadership and school board development, instructional audits, and long-range planning. Davis has been a presenter at national, regional, and state conferences on such topics as: Characteristics of High-Performing School Districts, Leadership That Makes a Difference, Auditing for School/District Effectiveness, Long-Range Facility Planning, Strategic Thinking for Strategic Direction, and Good-to-Great School Boards. He has written two Phi Delta Kappa Fastbacks with M. Donald Thomas; edited a book on leadership and change published in February 2006; and is CEO of the School Management Study Group, a national education consulting firm. Davis has served as a trainer for the United States Air University and NOVA University. Davis currently serves on three national advisory groups: The National Research Center on Rural Education Support (NRCRES), a federally funded grant organization housed at the University of North Carolina and partnered with Pennsylvania State University, whose goal is to provide support for rural schools nationwide; the National School Development Council (NSDC) based in Massachusetts; and the National Rural Education Association (NREA), one of the most important voices for rural education based at the University of Oklahoma. 5 William Owings
Journal for Effective Schools
Davis served as the founding Executive Editor of the Journal for Effective Schools, a nationally refereed scholarly journal that focuses on research, policy, and practice of Effective Schools from 2002 until his retirement in December 2007. Currently, he is a consultant for Learning Keys, an educational services company specializing in comprehensive school improvement to ensure student achievement. Gene's contributions in education have been profound, and we wish him all the best in his new endeavors. Thank you, Gene, for so many years of dedicated, quality service in education and for seeing the need for a professional journal dedicated to the research behind the Effective Schools Movement.
6 Dedication
Volume 7, Number 1
Spring 2008
Merit and Achievement in the Post-Modern World Allan Ornstein St. John's University Abstract This article is based on the author's recent book, Class Counts: Education, Inequality, and the Shrinking of the Middle Class. The book examines the (1) growing inequality in American, (2) struggling and shrinking middle class, (3) Nation's slow economic decline, (4) erosion of the American dream, (5) inability of schools and colleges to overcome current gaps in income and wealth, and (6) decline of meritocracy in the midst of scientific and technical jobs increasingly outsourced to Asia and Eastern Europe. The article reflects some of the overall issues of the book. More about the book can be found in the book review at the end of this Journal issue. Americans are a nation on the make. Democracy has unleashed the energies of its entire people, and with this new energy comes the dissolution or a stratified society. According to McDougall (2004), we are con artists and cowboys and dreamers and inventors, not because we are a different breed of species or better or worse than other nations, but because Americans have enjoyed immense opportunity to pursue ambitions and dreams. On the positive side, these distinctions have helped Americans to have faith in themselves−−to win the West, to innovate, to expand and make it big−−not being fixed by Old World church or state hierarchies and social or class distinctions that hold people in place and constrain innovative spirit and energies, as in most parts of the world. As a new culture and society, the humblest and poorest have been able to lift up their heads and face the future with confidence; education has increasingly been relied on as an integral part of this process of becoming. On the negative side, this forceful, driving, and imaginative American characteristic has led to political excesses and abuses−−nearly wiping out whole civilizations and extracting land from other people and places in order to further and/or protect American interests. It has also produced some ghastly business ethics−−based
on greed and creative corruption−−highlighted by the Gilded Age, the Wall Street collapse in the 1930's, the dot-com bust and ethics of Enron in post-2000, and the current sub-prime bank fiasco. Although some observers might criticize the American character, and comment about flaws and failures, McDougall (2004) and others (Felring, 2003; Price, 2003) maintain that the formation of the United States is the central event of the past 400 years. Imagine some ship flying the Dutch, English, or French flag in the year 1600 and then being transported to the present. The difference would astound them. From a primitive and vacant land, America has become the mightiest, richest, most dynamic civilization in history, exceeding the achievements of not only the European world but also the entire world. America is perhaps the most revolutionary country, a society that is constantly changing and reforming and revitalizing itself. To paraphrase Joseph Perkins, a famous Harvard orator in 1797, we are the Athens and Rome of our age, and until recently the admiration of the world. Geography and Smart Thinking On a global, much more theoretical level, growth and prosperity among cultures and civilizations 7 Allen Ornstein
Journal for Effective Schools
can be explained by environment, or by limits of geographical isolation. Given a make-believe world in which every individual has identical genetic potential, there would still be large differences in education, skills, and related occupations and productivity among people because of demographic differences that over centuries shape human behavior and attitudes. For Sowell (1998), the conservative economist, nothing so much conflicts with desire for equality as geography; it is the physical setting−−reflected by large bodies of water, deserts, mountains, forests−−in which civilizations, nations, races, and ethnic groups have evolved and in turn produced different cultures. Put simply, the people of the Himalayas have not had equal opportunity to acquire seafaring skills, and the Eskimos did not have equal opportunity to learn how to farm or grow oranges. Too often the influence of geography is assessed in terms of natural resources that directly impact national wealth. But geography also influences cultural differences and cognitive thinking, by either expanding or limiting the universe of ideas and inventions available to different people. When geography isolates people, say by mountains, a desert, or a small island, the people have limited contact with the outside world and, subsequently, technological and innovative advancement is limited. While the rest of the world trades skills, ideas, and values from a larger cultural pool, isolated people are limited by their own resources and what knowledge they have developed by themselves. Very few advances come from isolated cultures, and those that do are usually modified and improved by people that have learned to assimilate and adopt new ideas from other cultures. Until 9/11, the United States had the advantage of geographical isolation and protection. This isolation did not hinder national progress because of the large influx of immigrants from around the world who
not only brought meager possessions to our shores, but also ideas, values, and aspirations. England, France, Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands were tiny countries, compared to China and India, but the Europeans traveled the navigable waterways of their continent as well as the Atlantic. They came in contact with many other countries and civilizations, including South America, Africa, Egypt, Turkey, India, China, Japan−−and thus gained from this knowledge. But the older civilizations (which were once more advanced, but isolated) were overtaken and conquered by the smaller countries that had expanded their knowledge base. Once Japan broke from its isolation, it became one of today's economic powers, and a comparable process is now shaping China and India. Similarly, the rise of the United States−−in particular our skills, technology, innovations, and economic advances−−is based on the history of immigrants, people coming from all parts of the world, melting together, and exchanging knowledge and ideas. It is this constant flow of different people from different parts of the globe that helps create an American entrepreneurial spirit and sense of innovation and creativity not enjoyed in more static, less dynamic countries. The first generation of immigrants may not score high on standardized reading tests, because of language differences, but intellectual resources, hard work, and sweat have spearheaded much of this country's industrial machinery and muscle in the twentieth century and much of our high-tech information in the twenty-first century. Murray (2004) introduced a different twist to the record of human history and why Western nations have advanced more rapidly than other civilizations. Murray was coauthor of The Bell Curve in 1994, which relied on statistical data to make a case for innate and inherited intelligence as the crucial factor for success in society and the 8
Merit and Achievement in the Post-Modern World
Volume 7, Number 1
reason why different racial and ethnic groups think differently (some are more verbal, mathematical, or abstract). In the author's new book ten years later, he ranked geniuses throughout the ages (the last three thousand years). He identified 4,002 influential scientists and artists using a method which he claimed allowed individuals from numerous fields and different cultures to be ranked. Murray (2004) concluded that the Western culture has contributed most to the arts and sciences. What the human condition is today, and what human species have accomplished, is largely due to people who hail from Western Europe in a half-dozen centuries. Sure to fire up the critics, as he did with his earlier book, he makes it clear that White males have been more creative and innovative than minorities and women. Whereas many people consider science and religion to be in opposition, he argues that cultures girded by Christianity have been more productive than cultures bolstered by other religions. Among the top-ranked, most creative, innovative, and influential people, according to Murray (2004), are Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein in sciences and Aristotle, Plato, and Confucius in philosophy. Michelangelo is the greatest artist and Shakespeare is the greatest writer. Murray marvels that these conclusions coincide with current opinion. Bombast and pompous thinking comes easy to Murray. He asserts the people must be right because his research gives them (not him) face validity. Murray cares little about opinion, or whether history or philosophy agrees with these conclusions, because his analysis is based on quantifiable methods and the opinions of others are based on qualitative thought. By the thunderous force of his ego, he dismisses his critics in advance as reflecting political correctness, trendy relativism, and postmodernist or antiestablishment beliefs. On the other hand,
Spring 2008
Murray claims he has science and research procedures on his side, and any other position is bogus. Allow me a short aside. If one were a betting man and had been asked to choose in the medieval period which part of the world would dominate the others in knowledge and the arts for much of the coming millenniums, one would most likely have put their money on the Islam world−−not Western Europe. The leading scientists, mathematicians, and intellectuals came from this part of the world, and it was the Islamic world that created the first global market, linking Europe with Asia through trade. How Europe and America rose to preeminence after the Middle Ages is for many historians and philosophers a puzzle. Some say it had something to do with the birth of the Renaissance; others refer to the Enlightenment and Age of Reason. McNeill (1963), professor of history at the University of Chicago, credited Europe's ascent to its warlike prowess, navigational skills, and resistance to disease. Stark (2006), a Catholic historian, argued the rise of the West is linked to the spread of Christianity, with its emphasis on preserving manuscripts and embracing intellect and reason in advancing the faith. Whereas other religions looked to the past for spiritual guidance, Christianity looked to the future in the coming of the Messiah and thus was more progressive. In Thomistic Roman Catholic theology, faith and reason are complimentary and support each other. The suggestion that Christianity is built on reason and is based on a progressive interpretation of the scriptures and/or open to competing views is considered a fairy tale by many social scientists. But Murray (2004) also associated the West's rise to global dominance with Christianity, as well as its people having a respect for science, technology, and invention. For the last five or six centuries, 9 Allen Ornstein
Journal for Effective Schools
the West has cornered the market in knowledge and the arts because of its intellect and open mind and because its thoughts have had a relation to reality−−not faith or Zen−−and rejected a rigid ideology. He also argued (as others have) that Christian doctrine allied itself to Greek and Roman art and philosophy. But it is hard not to sense Murray's patrician and elitist background, as his interpretation of the world order is linked to Social Darwinism: Certain people are smarter than others and thus will rise to the top of the ladder, and certain societies are more adaptive than others and thus will grow and prosper more than others, while their counterparts falter or decline. And now for the bad news! Murray (2004) warned that the West has peaked. It has lost its vitality and benchmark for history's highest achievers. A champion of excellence, he asserted that in a few hundred years from now, we will be explaining why the locus of great human accomplishment is now located in a completely different part of the world. Sadly, I don't think we will have to wait that long−−not if the international test scores in science and math achievement that compare U.S. students to industrialized counterparts in Europe and Asia are any barometer of the future, and not if the fact that China and India each graduate four to one more scientists and engineers than the United States is an indicator of tomorrow's innovation and invention. The fact is, more than 25 percent of the K-12 student population in the United States is considered poor, and the country is often unable to provide them with a safe and orderly environment for learning. The new wave of scientific and technological knowledge will come from Asia, given existing education and economic trends, coupled with many stories in news magazines such as Economist and Business Week and in newspapers such as Financial Times and New York Times. There is a shift in brain power from the
East to the West, commonly called brain drain, as foreign students leave the U.S., or decline to attend, first-rate American institutions of higher learning and follow the lure of economic opportunity, slowing down in the West and routed back to the East. Not only has the number of foreign students' enrollments in U.S. colleges and universities dropped since 9/11, down from 583,000 to 565,000, but fewer students are opting to come to the United States, even after being accepted. In the meantime, between 2003 and 2004, the number of students from China and India (the largest source of U.S. foreign students, totaling 25 percent of all foreign students in 2004-2005) has declined because of improved economies and opportunities in these two countries. To be candid, the United States is losing its competitive edge, as most of the aforementioned students were enrolled in science, math, and technological fields and then remained in the United States. The next book on the best and brightest is bound to profile an increasing number of scientists, engineers, and knowledge producers from the non-Western world, with hundreds of hard to pronounce names from China and India, and even from Japan, South Korea, and Thailand. Unless some idiosyncratic quirk occurs, America and its European cousins will lose inventive and innovative ground to the East, based on the world's increased production of scientists and engineers now coming from Asia. The more graduate students in science and engineering that the United States attracts from Asia, the larger the pool of human capital that may wind up in Silicon Valley, North Carolina's golden triangle, and other high tech and innovative centers. Brain workers migrate to brain working centers. What the United States needs to do is to maintain the flow of brain drain from other countries by creating an immigration 10
Merit and Achievement in the Post-Modern World
Volume 7, Number 1
policy that slashes the influx of unskilled immigrants and rewards human capital with a point-system modeled after Canada and Australia. Given the rapid increase in globalization, brain-based jobs are highly mobile. U.S. immigration policies must attract innovative and technological talent, not repel it by making it difficult to obtain student visas or science/ engineering job visas. In making immigration laws, the U.S. Congress tends to cater to big business' demand for cheap labor to fill the ranks of agribusiness, hotel and restaurant industries, and sweatshop manufacturing, while shortchanging high-tech, high-wage industries and ignoring the economic advantages of human capital. The Growth of Knowledge New knowledge in the United States doubles about every fifteen or twenty years. In many third-world countries the mule and horse are the main modes of transportation, and the local economy is mainly picking berries, dragging banana trees to market, or having children clean out goat intestines that can be turned into leather. This is the real China, India, Myanmar (formerly Burma), Pakistan, and the African continent−− the rural hinterland−−possibly representative of nearly two-thirds of the world, which American students and teachers cannot fathom. This is not to deny these countries don't have a corporate mentality and a class of people that remind us of both old-fashioned industrialists and a new brand of technocrats who are versed in computer software, media, and other high-tech and electronic ventures. What is less clear is the extent to which this new economic growth and human capital trickles down to the global masses who live in poverty, both in the countryside, far away from the new economy which deals with the exchange of knowledge and ideas, and in urban squalor,
Spring 2008
where old and new knowledge, ideas, and values collide: East meets West and high-tech meets lowtech, causing a great cultural rift and the makings of revolution. Here old catchphrases are envisioned that divide people into winners and losers, societies of widening disparities, much worse than the United States because of government corruption and a lack of fair laws. It is called the gap between rich and poor. Asians and Africans call it light and darkness. Call it what you want. Extreme disparities and huge inequities hinder mobility around the world. For two thousand years, before the invention of railroads, trucks, and airplanes, water was the key for traveling and exploring. Up to the 1850s, it was faster and cheaper to travel by water from San Francisco to China than overland to Chicago. The Europeans, since the Viking era, understood that geographical isolation could be overcome by the sea or ocean, and, given their capitalistic and conquering zeal and attitudes of superiority, they went out and traded with, and also colonized, other peoples and other cultures. Subsequently, industrial and technological advances were made by adopting and modifying the ideas of other civilizations. Anyone familiar with New York City, Chicago, or Los Angeles understands these cities house people from a vast assortment of countries with different knowledge, ideas, and values. The old patrician class has always disrespected and discriminated against these people, but the quest for economic opportunity and the dynamic factors that drove the great numbers of these people to migrate to America have managed to overcome some of the patrician forces, customs, and laws that have tried to stifle newcomers landing in these cities. Far from celebrating their particular identities, most urban dwellers have contact with different people and become more hip, sophisticated, and/or cosmopolitan than their nonurban counterparts. Even kids who come 11 Allen Ornstein
Journal for Effective Schools
from the backwaters of the world, say from the rice paddies of Vietnam or the mountains of Montenegro, quickly become enculturated into the American environment, especially if they settle in large cities and they step out of their parents' cultural and historical isolation. The computer and cell phone may increase our ability to communicate with people from around the world, but there is still a limitation on exposure to new thoughts without actual contact with different people. Thinking in America is shaped not only by one's home environment and community but also by the diverse people with which one comes in contact, who reshape and expand thinking and imagination. Those who come in contact with people from around the world assimilate more information that those who remain trapped in urban ghettos, rural villages, mountains, or islands. To be sure, one can live in most parts of Nebraska and Wyoming, safe from people who have funny-sounding names, different customs, and strange folklore, but that person is not going to have the same opportunity to expand thinking and creative juices. If, on the other hand, one lives life in a melting pot area, that person will more likely be tolerant, pursue novel ideas, and resist large-scale bureaucracy, production lines, and routine jobs. Enhanced communication among people is not only important at the school level, but also at the community level; and far more effective in an environment where people of different cultures trade ideas and learn from each other. The point is that human creativity is the ultimate economic resource and link to national wealth. The chances are, also, that the creative mind will raise productivity, earn more money, and enjoy his or her job compared to a close-minded individual who is insulated from different people with different ideas and different ways of thinking−−and works on an assembly line and performs routine tasks.
A Change in Meritocracy The phrase postindustrial society, coined by Harvard's Bell (1973), described the scientifictechnological societies evolving in developed countries in the second half of the twentieth century. The singular feature of this society is the importance of scientific and technical knowledge as the source of production, innovation, and policy formulation. Emerging from the older economic systems in both advanced capitalistic and socialistic countries is a knowledge society based on preeminence of professionals and managers. In the United States during the 1950s and 1960s, Bell noted, "this group outpaced…all others in rate of growth, which was…seven times more than the overall rate for workers" (p. 108). In the 1990s, computer and high-tech sectors outpaced the entire economy, reflected by a soaring NASDAQ market whose bubble burst in 2000. Nonetheless, the stratification structure of this new society produced a highlytrained, knowledge-based elite, which is supported by a large scientific and technical staff and which has become the economic engine for the new century. Moreover, it is only the part of society that has successfully competed with the patrician (super-rich) society, at least up to the point where the blue bloods have taken notice of who is being admitted into Harvard and who is working on Wall Street. The basis of achievement in the postindustrial society is education and high academic expectations. Merit and differentials in status, power, and income are awarded to highly-educated and trained experts with credentials; they are seen as the decision makers who will inherit the power structure in business, government, and even politics. Achievement and mobility are also related to entrepreneurship and the risk taking: what Ben Franklin would call hard work and Merrill Lynch or Forbes magazine might call 12
Merit and Achievement in the Post-Modern World
Volume 7, Number 1
making money the old-fashioned way. Fussell, (1983) a University of Pennsylvania sociologist, labeled these postindustrial knowledge workers as the X class. C. Wright Mills, as cited in Fussell, said the middle-class person was always somebody's man, whereas the X person is nobody's. X people are highly independent, educated, and achievement oriented; who view retirement as meaningful only to hired personnel or wage slaves who hate hard work. This trend toward a meritocracy of the intellectual elite has aggravated inequalities. The majority of people in a democratic society accept this form of inequality, because it is based on individual talent and achievement−−not inherited privilege or rank−−and because this form of meritocracy is designed, at least in theory, to benefit the common good. Because of socioeconomic deprivation and limited education, poor and minority groups are unable to compete successfully in a society based on educational credentials and educational achievement. Without the appropriate certificates, they are not needed by the economy; not necessarily exploited, but underpaid for their services; not necessarily discriminated against, but not in demand. An achievement-oriented society based on academic credentials and standardized tests (which compare individuals in relation to a group score, say on IQ, achievement, or aptitude) condemns many people who cannot compete on an intellectual or cognitive level to the low end of the stratification structure. It is the classic problem: the rich (who have more resources for better education) get richer and the poor get poorer−−and gaps between the haves and have nots have dramatically increased in the last decade. Put in more precise terms, for the last twenty or twenty-five years, one-fifth of the population (on the income pyramid) has been improving its prospects while the remaining 80 percent has lagged behind. With the Bush
Spring 2008
administration, it is the top 10 percent that has glommed almost all of the economic growth because of increased globalization, Wall Street greed and corruption, and free-market economic policies, which create unstable conditions for working- and middle-class people. Surprisingly, no one has rebelled. The majority have not imposed higher taxes on the wealthy; in fact, the opposite has occurred, partially because conservative forces since the Nixon administration have dominated the White House and Congress. In education terms, however, what counts today is how the government spends money on intellectual capital−−federal support of schools, college scholarships, and retraining of labor. Human capital (educated and credentialed professionals and business people) is the key for creating economic capital. Should Alexander Hamilton's mob be educated (his view of the common people); and to what extent? In the final analysis, human capital (Thomas Jefferson's position) is more important than economic capital (Hamilton's position) if democracy is to survive and if the country is going to continue to prosper. The irony is, however, inequality is exacerbated by the rise of human capital, that is, by an increase of knowledge workers. Inequality is greater in cities such as New York, Boston, and Los Angeles because knowledge workers easily find work in these cities and earn considerably more than people who engage in routine tasks or low-tech and low-end jobs. But the other side of the coin is that they contribute more to society and therefore deserve to be paid more. In simple economic terms, how much more can we raise the salary of an expert janitor−−$1 per hour, $2 per hour? Consider the janitor's raise vis-à-vis the raise for an expert computer programmer, scientist, or attorney. Americans now produce fewer and fewer products; however, we produce intellectual property (i.e. pharmaceutical research, computer 13 Allen Ornstein
Journal for Effective Schools
chips, software, etc.) which has dramatically increased the nation's innovative, information, and high-tech economy. This type of intellectual capital has led to millions of new jobs, the most important reason for focusing on human capital. Bill Gates, who blends Jefferson's politics with Hamilton's economics, is critical of the nation for rationing education on wealthy and suburban children at the expense of low-income and urban children. Gates has personally committed $1.2 billion for high school reform that would ensure that all students receive a college prep curriculum (Toppo, 2004). Will the efforts of Bill Gates and other reformers help achieve a more meritorious society? People are human, complicated by a host of flaws including greed and arrogance. If those who advance come to believe they have achieved economic success on their own merits, they may come to believe they are entitled to what they get−−and the hell with stupid, slow, or lazy people. According to Young (2001), the English scholar, those who rise in a meritorious society can become smug, just as smug, if I may add, as people who were born on the more fortunate side of the economic divide and used their parents' economic resources and social connections to rise up the ladder of success. The newcomers to wealth, the academic elite, may actually come to believe they have morality and justice on their side. A new form of arrogance can develop by the creation of meritocracy, by the same people who once believed in and exemplified the political theories of Jeffersonian democracy and the stories of Horatio Alger. If true merit becomes associated with heredity or innate ability, as it often is construed, as opposed to the notion of opportunity, then meritocracy becomes less of a virtue and more of a propaganda tool for patricians and conservatives to wave and use against the populace who have fewer opportunities because of their social and economic status.
In a society that prizes merit and achievement, the reward structure is linked to a person's natural ability. In The Rise of Meritocracy, Young (1958) warned that such a society would put most of its resources in effective programs and schools that favored the academic elite, thus pushing the gifted and talented to the top and the less gifted and talented behind. Even worse, the process would continue over generations because of the assertive and class-based mating and the component of heredity, which people in a democracy prefer not to discuss because of its racial implications. Both bright and slow students and adults will continue to compete in school and society, partially fortified by class distinctions (environment) and heredity. Barring drastic government policies, the search for merit and achievement will move capable people to the top and less capable people to the bottom. Although some say this is the most ideal society, as it gives everyone the chance to rise to the top, it has serious implications for average and dull people, and with people who have fewer opportunities because of class. If left unchecked or unregulated, it leads to increasing inequality, and ultimately where one group feels they belong to another species−−very high or very low. Trying to figure out the interactions of environment and heredity is a hopeless policy issue, rather the crux of the problem is to deal with the disadvantages of a limited environment because of class factors that twist and deform the spirit and lead to the plight of the next generation. Ideally, a balance should be found, some entitlement or safety net, that protects the lower classes and that children and parents of various abilities and talents can accept. The issue can be exemplified in reverse−−the recent period which de-emphasized programs for the talented and gifted, due to pressure to create heterogeneous classrooms with a wide range of academic abilities, and in the passage of affirmative action legislation. Part of the search for balance or fairness is to adopt an uncompromising 14
Merit and Achievement in the Post-Modern World
Volume 7, Number 1
commitment to produce more effective schools in lower-class communities. There is no set of recommendations that can please the entire American populace. Perhaps someone in a little cabaret in South Texas (a Johnny Cash jingo) or a coffee shop in Hoboken, New Jersey (a Philip Roth location) or a church in Yoknapatawpha County (William Faulkner's fictional but real place) can figure out a solution, as our leaders and statesmen cannot come to a consensus, and instead regularly engage in negative nabobs of negativism. All that can be hoped for is some balance−−some sense of fairness in the search for talent and in the reward system that compromises society, and some sense of fairness in the distribution of wealth. References Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society. New York, NY: Basic. Felring, J. (2003). A leap in the dark: The struggle to create the American Republic. New York. NY: Oxford University Press. Fussell, P. (1983). Class: A guide through the American status system. New York, NY: Summit. McDougall, W. A. (2004). Freedom just around the corner. New York, NY: HarperCollins. McNeil, W. H. (1963). The rise of the west. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Murray, C. (2004). Human accomplishment: The pursuit of excellence in the arts and sciences. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Spring 2008
Perkins, J. (1997, July 19). An oration upon genius. Pronounced at Harvard University. Harvard University, Boston, MA. Price, D. A. (2003). Love and hate in Jamestown. New York, NY: Knopf. Sowell, T. (1998). Conquests and cultures: An international history. New York, NY: Basic. Sowell, T. (1998, October 5). Race, culture and equality. Forbes, 144-49. Stark, R. (2006). The victory of reason: How Christianity led to freedom, capitalism, and western success. New York, NY: Random House. Toppo, G. (2004, February 28). Groups call for comprehensive reform for U.S. high schools. USA Today. Young, M. (1958). The rise of meritocracy, 1870-2033. London, UK: Thames and Hudson. Young, M. (2001, June 29). Down with meritocracy! Guardian. Allan Ornstein is a professor of Education at St. John's University in New York. He is the author of more than 55 books and 400 articles and research papers in the areas of social foundations, social policy, and curriculum. This article is adapted from Allan Ornstein's text, Class Counts: Education, Inequality, and the Shrinking Middle Class, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.
15 Allen Ornstein
Volume 7, Number 1
Spring 2008
Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools William A. Owings Old Dominion University Leslie S. Kaplan Newport News, Virginia Abstract What is the Effective Schools literature, and what does the research say about effective practices? This article reviews the origins of the Effective Schools Research; discusses why some believe that schools can not overcome achievement gaps in student learning; and provides an overview of the research supporting the Effective Schools Correlates.
The Report That Started it All In July, 1966, Coleman published Equality of Educational Opportunity, commonly referred to as the Coleman Report (Coleman et al., 1966). The authors concluded family background, not the school, was the major determinant of student achievement and life outcomes. "Schools bring little influence to bear on a child's achievement that is independent of his background and general social context. This very lack of an independent effect means that the inequalities imposed on children by their home, neighborhood, and peer environment are carried along to become the inequalities with which they confront adult life at the end of school" (p. 325). Coleman's findings suggested that children from poor families and homes lacking the prime conditions or values to support education could not learn a rigorous curriculum, regardless of what the school did. These findings created considerable controversy. They also had a profound political and policy influence on public schooling. The Coleman Report made schools appear unable to overcome or equalize the disparity in student academic achievement due to environmental factors and
encouraged the idea that school differences had little relationship to student achievement. One well-publicized finding was that schools accounted for about 10 percent of the variance in school achievement, while student background characteristics accounted for the other 90 percent (Madaus, Airasian, & Kellaghan, 1980). Likewise, Jencks (1972), a Harvard University professor of social policy, and colleagues corroborated Coleman's findings. In Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effects of Family and Schooling in America, Jencks reanalyzed Coleman's data and concluded that the schools' influence was marginal. Jencks surmised that schools did little to lessen the gap between rich and poor students or between more and less able students. Achievement primarily reflected the students' background. Further, little evidence existed that educational reform would improve school influence on student achievement. A school's output, Jencks concluded, depends almost entirely on the entering children's characteristics. "Everything else−−the school budget, its policies, the characteristics of the teachers−−is either secondary or completely irrelevant" (Jencks, pp. 255-256). 16 William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan
Journal for Effective Schools
Coleman and Jencks affirmed the statistical correlations between socioeconomic status and school achievement. They found that the higher a family's socioeconomic status, the better the children's school achievement. While the research and its reevaluation brought additional data to light that undercut the original conclusions, the initial reports' misleading but highly publicized first impression remained. Most people only remembered that schools could not overcome family background. As a result, the belief that for academic achievement, "families matter and schools don't" has become part of popular culture. In fact, "many public school educators have uncritically accepted the hypothesis of familial effects, along with its corollary: that teachers cannot be held accountable for students' failure to learn when the students come from poor home environments" (Orlich, 1989, p. 516). In a similar vein, in 1969, a University of California at Berkeley educational psychology professor published a highly controversial article (Jensen, 1969). He argued that a student's IQ was the best single predictor of scholastic achievement, and IQ was largely genetic. Jensen hypothesized that the test score differences between African American and White students resulted largely from genetic IQ differences and that environmental factors had little importance. Jensen's conclusions drew strident criticism from many members of the academic community and the public at large. Coleman, Jencks, and Jensen were among a group of social scientists during the 1960s and 1970s who believed that family factors such as poverty or a parent's lack of education prevented children from learning in school regardless of the teachers' instructional methods or school resources. These reports and the related literature prompted the federal government to create compensatory education programs, chiefly through
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary School Act. These programs focused on changing students' behavior in order to make up for disadvantaged backgrounds. These programs made no effort to change schools' behavior. The Genesis of the Effective Schools Research This early research prompted an important reaction. By claiming that schools did not make a difference in predicting student achievement, the Coleman Report stimulated researchers and educators who believed the opposite−−that effective schools could make a difference in student learning regardless of students' family backgrounds or socioeconomic status. These later investigators developed a body of research that concluded that schools can help all children learn. Most importantly, they surmised that schools control the factors needed to assure student mastery of the core curriculum. They also noted the family's important role in promoting student learning. To support these positions, several sets of researchers launched studies in the late 1970s to demonstrate that schools could be effective. They began to identify public schools whose graduates scored higher than the national average on standardized tests. Academic growth, not decline, characterized these schools. Soon, hundreds of studies and research-based analytic papers tried to identify these school characteristics or correlates which were unusually successful with students regardless of their socioeconomic background. Much of the Effective Schools Research might informally be considered as outlier studies (Scheerens & Bosker, 1997). An outlier is a statistical term to identify something that is at the far end of the distribution. In other words, one example of an outlier would be a school with all students eligible for free or reduced price lunch 17
Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools
Volume 7, Number 1
and extremely high student achievement test scores. These studies identified those schools that stood apart from schools with similar student socioeconomic backgrounds in terms of the expected student achievement. These investigations contained some methodological limitations, however, and small samples and statistical issues made results vary widely. Nevertheless, these outlier studies clearly showed that effective schools are characterized by good discipline, high teacher expectations for student achievement, and effective administrator leadership (Scheerens & Bosker). Another school effectiveness study in 1976 paired 21 matched California elementary schools. Schools differed only on the student standardized achievement test scores. Again, the higher achieving inner-city schools had strong principal leadership, higher expectations for student achievement, an academically focused atmosphere, and instructional emphasis as essential institutional influencers of pupil performance (Edmonds, 1979). Researchers noted that while these characteristics were common to all the improving schools, they operated and interacted in unique ways in each school (Purkey & Smith, 1983). In perhaps the author's most notable contribution, Edmonds (1982) articulated the five school-level variables that are strongly correlated with student achievement, the five Effective Schools Correlates: ●
● ●
● ●
Strong administrative leadership with attention to instructional quality High expectations for all student achievement A safe and orderly climate conducive to teaching and learning An emphasis on basic skill acquisition Frequent monitoring and measuring of pupil progress so teachers and principals are constantly aware of pupil progress in relationship to the instructional objectives
Spring 2008
Although other researchers proposed somewhat different lists, Edmonds' five Correlates of Effective Schools became immensely popular. They became the framework for thinking about school effectiveness for at least a decade and probably longer. The Effective Schools Supporting Research
Correlates
and
Further researchers (Scheerens and Bosker, 1997) revised and expanded the list of Effective Schools Correlates, as noted on the Journal for Effective Schools website. This article will highlight some of the more rigorous investigations and considerations supporting each of these Correlates. A Clearly Stated and Focused Mission on Learning for All The group (faculty, administration, parents) shares an understanding of and a commitment to the instructional goals, priorities, assessment, procedures, and personal and group accountability. Their focus is always, unequivocally, on the student. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) discussed the importance of a focused mission as one of the school leader's responsibilities. The four leadership behaviors that are noted in the meta-analysis include the following: ●
●
●
●
Establishing concrete goals for curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices in the school Establishing concrete goals for the functioning of the school Establishing high, concrete goals, and expectations that all students will meet them Continually keeping attention on established goals (pp. 50-51) 18 William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan
Journal for Effective Schools
Numerous school effectiveness research studies and school improvement program evaluations show that consensus on the school's goals and mission is related to improved student achievement and school outcomes (Cohen, 1983; Hallinger & Murphy, 1986; Lee, Bryk, & Smith, 1993; Lightfoot, 1983; MacKenzie, 1983; Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, & Smith, 1979; Stoll & Fink, 1994; Sun, Creemers, & deJong, 2007; Venezky & Winfield, 1979). Research, backing up intuition, indicates that a school's unity of purpose helps the teachers function as a coherent whole, providing a focused climate for student learning. In a widely cited research article, Hallinger and Murphy (1986) stated that staff in all the effective schools in the study viewed high levels of student achievement as the most important goal or mission. Hallinger and Heck (1998) examined studies exploring the principal's direct and indirect contribution to school effectiveness. They concluded that the most consistent findings in Effective Schools Research supported the view that principals' involvement in framing, articulating, and sustaining goals is a significant indirect influence on student achievement. Similarly, Lee, Bryk, and Smith (1993) reviewed the Effective Schools Research and report that, "such elements of community as cooperative work, effective communication, and shared goals have been identified as crucial for all types of organizations, not just schools" (p. 227). Other recent research found that while principals' strong instructional leadership is important, its impact on school effectiveness is indirect (Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000; Goddard, Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001; Goddard, LoGerfo, & Hoy, 2003). In terms of articulating a clear and focused vision and goals, the research appears to show that principal leadership indirectly makes a difference in student achievement in three ways (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2005):
●
●
●
Setting and communicating direction by envisioning clear, shared, and understandable courses of action and goals, generating high performance standards, and providing feed back about performance to others Developing people by providing educators and others with the needed support and training Redesigning the school organization by making it work, ensuring that a wide range of conditions and incentives support teaching and learning
Simply because principals' efforts to influence student achievement are not direct, however, does not reduce the importance these contributions make to school effectiveness. Evidence found that principal leadership is second only to teaching among the school-related factors in its impact on student learning (Leithwood et al., 2004). Principals in effective schools concentrate on these behaviors and indirectly enhance student achievement. The Education Trust (2005) examined high impact schools and identified the clearly focused mission and vision of learning for all. High impact was defined as schools that had student populations of at least 60% low income and achieved at higher than expected rates for at least three years. Under the heading of "culture," The Education Trust (2005) found the following: ●
●
●
High-impact schools have consistently higher expectations for all students, regardless of students' prior academic performance; and principals, teachers, and counselors take responsibility for helping students succeed. High-impact schools remove barriers to highlevel course-taking. Students are encouraged to take on academic challenges. In averageimpact schools, policy hurdles stand between students and access to the most challenging courses. High-impact schools use assessment data for future planning, such as improving curriculum 19
Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools
Volume 7, Number 1
or making teacher assignments. Averageimpact schools tend to use data primarily to measure past student performance. (p. 3) The culture of these high impact schools reflected the mission of the schools and addressed that mission in four factors. First, high-impact schools had a mission to prepare students for life beyond high school while average-impact schools prepared students for graduation. Second, a high-impact school's mission focused on academics while average-impact schools focused on rules. Third, effective school administrators and teachers had a consistent view of the school goals towards achievement. Less effective schools had less consistency in what constitutes the school mission. Fourth, teachers and administrators in high-impact schools embraced external standards and assessments while lesser-achieving schools tolerated or complained about this accountability. These four factors, which The Education Trust study identified, are consistent with the Effective Schools mission of shared understanding and commitment to the studentfocused instructional goals, priorities, assessments, and accountability. A Safe and Orderly Environment for Learning The school provides a purposeful, equitable, businesslike atmosphere that encourages, supports, allows mistakes, and is free of fear. School is a place that does no harm to developing psyches and spirits. In the hierarchy of human needs, Maslow (1954) put physiological and emotional safety needs first, the base for achieving all other physical and psychological levels. Effective schools must allow all stakeholders to be and feel safe in order to learn. Without a safe environment, students and teachers can not have the psychological energy to succeed in teaching or learning. Marzano (2003), in a meta-analysis of research
Spring 2008
on Safe and Orderly Environment, ranked this factor as the fourth most heavily weighted school factor for student achievement. A culture of trust and respect must exist in schools where students and teachers build strong relationships, and support structures that scaffold student achievement. Teachers and students alike must feel free to take purposeful risks in instruction. Kaplan and Owings (2007) maintained that, "Worry about safety shifts the brain's attention. When students and teachers worry about their personal safety, their focus insistently turn to protecting themselves. They become very cautious and watchful, hyper-alert to potential dangers. At such times, the emotional parts of their brain are more fully aroused and their cognitive areas become less active. In such environments, they cannot find any extra energy to pay attention to teaching and learning. Achievement suffers" (p. 49). Unless schools attend to this Correlate, the impact of all other Correlates will be minimized. Many studies have determined a safe and orderly environment is critical for academic achievement (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Mayer, Moore, & Ralph, 2000). In general, the more safe and orderly the school climate, the higher the student math and reading achievement levels. One study, controlling for student background characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, found that students in schools with high levels of violence had lower math scores and students were almost six percent less likely to graduate (Grogger, 1997). Additionally, the stronger the climate's academic emphasis in middle schools, the higher the reading, writing, and math achievement tests. A school characterized by a safe and orderly environment had significantly less student fear, lower dropout rates, and higher student commitment to learning (Grogger, 1997). 20 William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan
Journal for Effective Schools
Again, The Education Trust (2005) study of highimpact schools found that effective schools have a high level of faculty commitment to providing students with a safe environment. The less effective schools had a less focused, more general perspective on school environment. Marzano (2003) provided an entire chapter, Safe and Orderly Environment, in which a five-step action plan for schools to achieve a safe and orderly environment was recommended: ●
●
●
●
●
Establish rules and procedures for behavioral problems that might be caused by the school's physical characteristics or the school's routines. This involves examining the school for overcrowding students, staggering movement in hallways, reducing student wait time by using all entrances and exits, sequencing events in common areas, and the like. Establish clear schoolwide rules and procedures for general behavior. This involves developing universal rules instead of teacherspecific rules that vary from classroom to classroom. Establish and enforce appropriate consequences for rule and procedure violations. Discipline must be fair and consistently administered. Establish a program that teaches students self-discipline and responsibility. This would involve conflict resolution or peer mediation programs. One statewide study using conflict resolution education over three years reported a 14 percent statewide decrease in suspensions. School districts in which 50 percent or more or their schools sent student representatives for conflict resolution training had a 39 percent drop in suspension rates. Establish a system that allows for the early detection of students who have high potential for violence and extreme behaviors. An ounce of prevention, common sense dictates, is worth a pound of cure. (pp. 55-58)
Uncompromising Commitment Expectations for All
to
High
Those who are leaders empower others to become leaders who believe and demonstrate that all students can attain mastery of essential skills. This commitment is shared by professionals who hold high expectations of themselves. In the Pygmalion in the Classroom study, elementary school teachers, who were told that certain children were late bloomers and could be expected to be growth spurters, treated these randomly selected students as if they were very bright and capable and actually increased the achievement of the students (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). When teachers expect students to do well, students tend to do well; when teachers expect students to fail, they tend to fail. As a rule, all people rise or fall to the level of expectation placed on them. According to a United States Department of Education (1987) research document, high expectations for student achievement among teachers, parents, and students is a key element of effective schools. More than 15 years later, Marzano (2003) cited high expectations (under Challenging Goals and Effective Feedback) as the third most important school-level factor in student achievement. One meta-analysis examined more than 200 studies on high academic expectations and found where high and clear goals were established, student achievement was more than one half of a standard deviation higher than where such expectations were not established (Lipsey & Wilson, 1993). This translates to a 21-percentage point achievement difference. Viewed conversely, a British study found that low expectations have been identified as a significant factor in student underachievement in disadvantaged urban schools (OFSTED, 1993). 21
Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools
Volume 7, Number 1
High expectations alone, however, do not improve student achievement. Expectations must be operationalized at the classroom and school levels so that teachers establish rigorous goals for student achievement and provide constructive feedback on the extent to which students meet those goals. Communicating high expectations is likewise important since teachers' demonstrated respect for students' capacities to achieve at high levels increased student achievement by positively impacting student self-esteem (Bandura, 1992). Kaplan and Owings (2007) showed the Effective Schools evolution in thought regarding teachers' role in enacting high expectations. They stated that while the first generation of Effective Schools Correlates gave expectations for how teachers should behave or deliver lessons, it did not charge teachers with assuring student mastery. Teachers needed only to teach, test, and move on. Providing each student with the opportunity to learn was enough. Teachers held high expectations and acted upon them, but not all students learned.
Spring 2008
Lastly, schools as cultural organizations must transform from institutions designed for instruction to institutions designed to assure learning (Lezotte, 1991). Marzano (2003) connected high expectations and challenging goals with providing effective student feedback that reinforces these high expectations. He cited studies showing the impact of feedback on student achievement from a low of a 21-point percentile gain to a high of 41 points. Similarly, in a meta-analysis of almost 8,000 studies, Hattie (1992) stated, "The simplest prescription for improving education must be 'dollops' of feedback" (p. 9). Two necessary conditions, however, make feedback effective for student achievement. First, feedback must be timely and provided on multiple learning occasions as formative assessments that can be used immediately to promote learning. Second, feedback must be content specific, and tailored precisely to assess the information and skills students are learning (McMillan, 2000). Marzano (2003) suggested three action steps to implement high expectations and effective feedback. They included the following:
In the second generation Correlates, however, teachers became responsible for ensuring student learning to high standards as well as for using an increased instructional repertoire. Teachers are now responsible for knowing the mastery level each student needs in each curricular area and are accountable for getting each child to meet them. What is more, the entire school as an organization takes a systemic approach to continually identify and support students who do not learn (Lezotte, 1991).
Instructional Leadership
These revised expectations present a real change in what teachers require of themselves. To maintain a climate of high expectations, teachers must first hold high expectations for themselves. Similarly, the schools must restructure organizationally to provide teachers with more tools to help them achieve successful learning for all.
Although initially coming from the principal, teacher, or administrator, the goal is to include all participants as instructional leaders as their knowledge expands as a result of staff development. New insights excite and inspire stakeholders to take on leadership roles for school improvement. In an accountable learning
â—?
â—?
â—?
Implementing an assessment system that provides timely feedback on specific knowledge and skills for specific students Establishing specific, challenging achievement goals for the school as a whole Establishing specific goals for individual students (pp. 39-46)
22 William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan
Journal for Effective Schools
community, everyone is a learner and all can be leaders. Instructional leadership has been a fashionable term for decades, becoming the desired model, especially for principals. In fact, one state has defined the principal's role as the instructional leader of the school. It stresses the importance of keeping teaching and learning as the touchstone for making decisions. The term, however, is more often a slogan than a well-defined set of leadership practices. Instructional leadership does not solely involve the quality of the principal's leadership. It requires leadership's interaction with the school's vision and goals, how leaders change teacher and student expectations for higher achievement levels, and how leaders manage the change process. Leadership includes making the changes towards effective schools systemic to the school culture so the changes outlast the leaders' tenure in the facility. Moreover, effective leadership develops teacher leadership so the school's vision carries on beyond individual teachers' presence. In this light, effective leadership facilitates only deep and systemic change. Research supporting instructional leadership is extensive. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty's (2005) meta-analysis examined 69 quantitative studies that addressed school leadership and student achievement. These studies involved 2,892 schools, 1.4 million students, and 14,000 teachers.
Marzano found an average correlation (r) of .25 between leadership behaviors and student achievement1. Assuming the average r is accurate at .25, it is easy to see why leadership is an important Effective Schools Correlate. Marzano provides an example. Assume a principal is hired to work in a school that has an average achievement level at the 50th percentile. Also assume that the principal's leadership ability is at the 50th percentile. After several years, the r of .25 would predict that the average achievement level in the school would remain the same. If, however, the principal's leadership ability increased one standard deviation to the 84th percentile, average student achievement in the school would increase by 10 percentage points from the 50th percentile to the 60th percentile. If the principal's leadership ability increases to the 99th percentile, one would predict average student achievement in the school to increase to the 72nd percentile (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). What does this mean to instructional leaders? Which leadership behaviors or responsibilities increase student achievement? Marzano identified 21 specific responsibilities and the average correlation associated with student achievement. Figure 1 shows the leadership responsibility, its definition, and the average correlation with student achievement (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Each of these items is significant at the .05 level.
Figure 1 Leadership, Responsibilities, and Correlations (r) with Student Achievement Responsibility
The Extent to Which the Principal
Average r
1. Affirmation
Recognizes and celebrates accomplishments and acknowledges failures
.19
2. Change Agent
Is willing to challenge and actively challenges the status quo
.25
23 Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools
Volume 7, Number 1
Spring 2008
Figure 1 (Continued) Leadership, Responsibilities, and Correlations (r) with Student Achievement Responsibility
The Extent to Which the Principal
Average r
3. Contingent Rewards
Recognizes and rewards individual accomplishments
.24
4. Communication
Establishes strong lines of communication with and among teachers and students
.23
5. Culture
Fosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and cooperation
.25
6. Discipline
Protects teachers from issues and influences that would detract from teaching time or focus
.27
7. Flexibility
Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the current situation and is comfortable with dissent
.28
8. Focus
Establishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the forefront of the school's attention
.24
9. Ideals/Beliefs
Communicates and operates from strong ideals and beliefs about schooling
.22
10. Input
Involves teachers in the design and implementation of important decisions and policies
.25
11. Intellectual Stimulation
Ensures faculty and staff are aware of the most current theories and practices and makes the discussion of these a regular aspect of the school's culture
.24
12. Involvement in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Is directly involved in the design and implementation of curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices
.20
13. Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices
.25
14. Monitoring/Evaluating
Monitors the effectiveness of school practices and their impact on student learning
.25
15. Optimizer
Inspires and leads new and challenging innovations
.20
16. Order
Establishes a set of standard operating procedures and routines
.25
17. Outreach
Is an advocate and spokesperson for the school to all stakeholders
.27
24 William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan
Journal for Effective Schools
Figure 1 (Continued) Leadership, Responsibilities, and Correlations (r) with Student Achievement Responsibility
The Extent to Which the Principal
Average r
18. Relationships
Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of teachers and staff
.18
19. Resources
Provides teachers with materials and professional development necessary for the successful execution of their jobs
.25
20. Situational Awareness
Is aware of the details and undercurrents in the running of the school and uses this information to address current and potential problems
.33
21. Visibility
Has quality contact and interactions with teachers and students
.20
Source: Marzano Waters, & McNulty, 2005, pp. 42-43
Effective leadership involves a keen understanding of the differences between superficial and deep change. The work of Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) is instructive here. A factor analysis revealed two traits that underlie the 21 leadership responsibilities. They defined factors as first- and second-order change. First-order change is an incremental step and can be defined as change that is the most obvious step to take in the school, or superficial change. Second-order change, also called "deep change," involves a fundamental shift in the system. All 21 behaviors are important to first-order change while seven specific responsibilities are related to secondorder change. Those seven include the following in rank order: ●
● ● ● ●
Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Optimizer Intellectual Stimulation Change Agent Monitoring/Evaluating
● ●
Flexibility Ideals/Beliefs
Effective instructional leaders understand the difference between first- and second-order change and focus on those behaviors associated with deep change in the school (Reeves, 2006). While all Effective Schools literature included instructional leadership as a Correlate, it remains an indirect component (Miller & Rowan, 2006). That is, instructional leadership is an influence on the climate of expectations and is not a direct classroom influence as exerted by teachers. Generally, instructional leadership can influence achievement when principals do the following: ●
●
Set and communicate direction by envisioning clear, shared, and understandable courses of action and goals, generating high performance standards, and providing feedback about performance to others Develop people by providing educators and others with the needed support and training 25
Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools
Volume 7, Number 1 ●
Redesign the school organization by making it work, ensuring that a wide range of conditions and incentives support teaching and learning (Leithwood et al., 2004; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005)
1,500 classroom observations regarding the use of time and found the following: ● ● ●
Opportunity to Learn is Paramount
● ●
Time is allocated for specific and free-choice tasks. Students take part in making decisions about goals and tasks.
● ● ●
Schools' primary purpose is teaching for learning. Common sense dictates that for students to achieve, they must have appropriate opportunities to learn. This involves time. Some of the first studies of time and student achievement were examined by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement when it became a component of the First International Mathematics Study (Wilkins, 1997). The researchers examined amount of time devoted to the courses. The results of time were varied and associated positively with student achievement (Husen, 1967). Later researchers examined not only time allotted for course work but time on task. Not all instructional time is constructively used for teaching for learning. One study examined
Spring 2008
Clear learning objectives __ 4 percent Worksheets __ 52 percent Lecture __ 31 percent Monitoring with no feedback __ 22 percent Students required to speak in complete sentences __ 0 percent Evidence of assessment for learning __ 0 percent Evidence of bell-to-bell instruction __ 0 percent Fewer than one-half of students engaged __ 82 percent (Learning 24/7, 2005)
While these figures can not be generalized to all classrooms, effective school leaders should assess the reality of how time is spent in the schools. Clearly, opportunity to learn can be improved. In addition, Reeves (2006) showed one school's results where the school district increased allotted instructional time. Students most in need (those who tested lowest) were assigned to doubleperiod classes in the subject areas in which they were weak. The other students were assigned to traditional one-period classes. All students had to take the same final exam. Figure 2 shows the end-of-year results. Failure rates were lower in all double period classes.
26 William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan
Journal for Effective Schools
Figure 2 Impact of Double Periods on Student Failure Rates 50
45
40
35
30
Traditional Classes
25
Double Classes 20
15
10
5
0 Alg.1
Geom
Prin Math
Com p 1
Lit 1
Lit App
Source: Reeves, 2006, p. 103
Of all school level factors that impact student achievement, Marzano (2003) suggested opportunity to learn is the strongest. Opportunity to learn is more than just time on task. While time is important, what happens with that time may be more significant. Opportunity to learn refers to maximizing learning time and providing equitable conditions or circumstances within the school or classroom that promote learning for all students. It includes providing the high-quality curricula, learning materials, facilities, teachers, and instructional experiences that enable students to achieve high standards. Additionally, opportunity to learn relates to the absence of barriers that prevent learning. Opportunity to learn the designated curriculum for a grade level or age group is a major equity issue for students who are at risk of not developing academically to the fullest potential. Curriculum tracking, for instance, reduces lowtrack students' opportunity to learn.
One study defined opportunity to learn (OTL) as providing a conceptual framework for organizing three key factors associated with student achievement: curriculum coverage, resource allocation, and resource use practices (Reichardt, 2002). This study examined high-performing, high-need schools (HPHN) and low-performing, high-needs schools (LPHN). It found the main difference was that HPHN schools used principal "walk-throughs" as tools to enforce curricular coverage while principals in the LPHN did not enforce curricular coverage. Content, teaching practices, teaching resources, and time all compose opportunity to learn. If all students are to be held to the same high standards, they must have equal access to high-quality instruction and curriculum. Having high expectations for all students, a clear and focused mission, a safe and orderly learning environment, frequent monitoring of student performance, and positive home-school relationships will little
Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools
27
Volume 7, Number 1
impact student achievement unless schools ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn the essential content and skills. Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress Effective schools evaluate the skills and achievements of all students and teachers. No intimidation is implied. Rather, monitoring often is individualized, with improvement in learning as the goal. Another well-established Correlate is Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress. Monitoring student progress by itself, however, accomplishes little unless it is coupled with other Correlates to promote an effective school. Working in tandem with other Correlates, monitoring student progress offers four opportunities for school improvement. First, monitoring student progress is a vehicle for determining if, and how well, classroom and school goals are being met. Second, it can help teachers and students to focus on school goals. Third, it is a vehicle to guide planning, teaching, and assessing content. Fourth, monitoring students' work coupled with timely and specific feedback shows pupils that teachers are interested in the work and achievement, and can reinforce the commitment to high expectations. Sammons, Hillman, and Mortimore (1995) pointed out that monitoring progress goes beyond individual students. It involves observing and assessing classes, the school as a whole, and the improvement programs. Importantly, monitoring student progress contributes to the focus on teaching for learning, reinforces a climate of high expectations, enacts a focused mission, and provides greater opportunities to learn. Levine and Lezotte (1990) cited monitoring student progress as an often-referenced Effective Schools characteristic, yet argue that little
Spring 2008
consensus exists on defining the term, much less operationalizing it in the classroom. To address this, Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) clarified the concept by linking monitoring of student progress and the need to provide feedback to students. Feedback, therefore, is direct action resulting from monitoring student progress. The research on monitoring student work and providing feedback is rather strong with some studies showing an effect size of more than one standard deviation increase in student achievement (Kumar, 1991; Scheerens & Bosker, 1997). Other studies showed an effect size of between half a standard deviation to almost a full standard deviation (Bloom, 1976; Haller, Child, & Walberg, 1988; Walberg, 1999). The effect size increases in student achievement associated with feedback ranged from 21 to 41 points in percentile gains (Marzano, Waters, and McNulty). To register these large gains, the monitoring and feedback must have two factors. First, the feedback must be timely, specific, and formative. That is, students must receive contentrelated feedback soon after the work is submitted, while it still holds meaning for them. Second, feedback must be formative−−that is offered over multiple occasions during the learning process when it can immediately be used to enhance understanding as opposed to summative, where students receive feedback at the end of the learning experience as a grade (Bangert-Downs, Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991). In a review of the assessment research, Black and William (1998) noted that timely and formative assessment can have an effect size of 0.7 on student achievement. They observed that this increase would be sufficient at a country-wide level in mathematics to boost the United States into the top five scoring mathematics countries in the world. This amounts to an approximate 25 percentile point gain in student test scores. 28 William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan
Journal for Effective Schools
In addition, the formative feedback must be specific to the content being learned. Unless school assessments are content specific, the assessment will not reveal how well the students are learning and diagnose learning weaknesses. In dealing with state No Child Left Behind (NCLB) assessments, schools must align testing with the assessment criteria. Cizek (2001) and Hambleton (2001) observed that state test performance categories usually provide little effective feedback for teachers to pass on to students regarding specific knowledge and skills. Marzano (2003) concluded that, "all too often schools rely on state tests with vague performance level indicators as the primary feedback mechanism to students on these important tests" (p. 29). Marzano (2003) offered three action steps to implement an effective feedback program: ●
●
●
Implement an assessment system that provides timely feedback on specific knowledge and skills for specific students Establish specific, challenging achievement goals for the school as a whole Establish specific goals for individual students (pp. 39-46)
To be sure, frequent monitoring of student progress coupled with timely and specific feedback can enhance other Correlates and provide significant improvements in student achievement. Monitoring progress provides studentlevel data and aggregates those data to assess school-level goals. Moreover, used correctly, frequently monitoring student progress and giving timely and specific feedback tend to strengthen all the previously mentioned Correlates.
While communication appears last on the Correelate list, its contribution to school effectiveness is far from least. Virtually all the literature refers to this Correlate in one form or another. Teddlie, Stringfield, and Reynolds (2000) indicated that the terms home-school communication, parent involvement, and community involvement frequently overlap in the literature. Sammons, Hillman, and Mortimore (1995) referred to this variable as "home-school partnership" (p. 21). This definition overlap becomes problematic and complex when reviewing research associated with this Correlate. In that light, this Correlate's research base is examined. Enhanced communication involves the degree to which parents and the community are involved with the school. The definitions' overlap, however, raises questions requiring clarification. What constitutes coming together as partners in learning for all? Does it involve parental attendance at meetings, active participation, or even parent leadership? Are the data student reported, parent reported, or school reported? Is achievement defined as achievement test scores or GPA? Do different outcomes appear for various racial/ethnic groups? How much does family socioeconomic status levels vary? Does this Correlate impact various subject areas differently? The answer to all these questions is, Yes. Effects vary, but thoughtful and well designed programs enhance positive effects across all populations. Epstein (1995) discussed this Correlate's complexity and provides a six-category typology for examining the issue: ●
●
Enhanced Communication Includes home, school and community coming together as partners in learning for all.
●
Parenting __ helping families establish home environments to support children as students Communicating __ designing effective forms of home-to school and school-to-home communications about school programs and children's progress Volunteering __ recruiting and organizing parent help and support 29
Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools
Volume 7, Number 1 ●
●
●
Learning at Home __ providing information and ideas to families about how to help students at home with homework and other curriculum-related activities, decisions, and planning Decision Making __ including parents in school decisions, developing parent leaders and representatives Collaborating With the Community __ identifying and integrating resources and services from the community to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and development
Epstein (1995) summarized her view of enhancing communication and partnerships as follows: The way schools care about children is reflected in the way schools care about the children's families. If educators view children simply as students, they are likely to see the family as separate from the school. That is, the family is expected to do its job and leave the education of children to the schools. If educators view students as children, they are likely to see both the family and the community as partners with the school in children's education and development. Partners recognize their shared interests in and responsibilities for children, and they work together to create better programs and opportunities for students. (p. 701) Marzano (2003) cited parent and community involvement as the third most important student achievement variable of the five school-level factors−−just behind a guaranteed and viable curriculum and challenging goals and effective feedback. Similarly, in a national British study, Tizard, Schofield, and Hewison (1992) showed that positive parental involvement in reading had a greater impact on student achievement than an additional teacher in the classroom.
Spring 2008
Echoing much of Epstein's work, Marzano (2003) noted three components to this Correlate−−communication, participation, and governance. The first component, home-school communication, is among the most important factors in developing strong relationships between teachers and families (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Epstein, 1995). Communication involves two-way interaction−−from school to home and from home to school. Effective exchanges build the trust that fosters parental support for the school. Nonetheless, how home-school communication helps student achievement is somewhat unclear. Coleman and colleagues (1966) suggested that when parents and teachers express similar objectives and expectations for students, the combined force may result in increased student achievement. Further, the interconnectedness of relationships between teacher, student, and parent may create allies or enemies in the schooling process. Research shows, however, that an open invitation to criticize classroom teachers, schools, and school policy can have negative impacts on schools (Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993). Instead, schools should elicit parent and community involvement in formative policy and procedure development that has a direct impact on children and student achievement. Schools have traditionally viewed interaction with the home as a vehicle to garner unquestioning parental support. To be truly effective, schools must communicate with parents as active partners in the schooling process (Vandergrift & Greene, 1992). To accomplish this goal, schools must change the customary communication patterns' focus as seen in Figure 3.
30 William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan
Journal for Effective Schools
Figure 3 Parental Involvement Model Adapted from Joyce Epstein's Typology Old Paradigm From
New Paradigm To
Parent Focus
Family Focus
Family
Community Agencies
School
Home/Neighborhood
Eager, Willing, and Able Parents
Hard-to Reach Families
School Agendas
Family Priorities
Davies (1991) suggested that schools' communication intention shift in order to establish partnerships for student success. This involves adjusting the targets from mainly reaching eager, willing, and able parents to also include hard-to-reach families and from basing home-school communications on the school's needs to making family priorities the primary agenda. Marzano's (2003) second component, participation, involved recruiting and organizing parent participation in the school. Using parents as classroom aides, guest speakers, and community resources can help accomplish this. Such diverse recruitment shows the community that the school values and welcomes parental ideas and support. As an added benefit, when schools involve parents in day-to-day operations, attendance rates increase, graduation rates increase, and truancy rates decrease (Bucknam, 1976). Finally, Marzano's (2003) third component, governance, involved including parents in the
school decision-making process−−especially with programs and practices shown to impact student achievement. When parents participate in school decisions, the change process implementation brings broader support and understanding (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996). One study has determined that parental involvement in school governance may mitigate some of the negative effects related to racial/ethnic barriers and differences (Desimone, 1999). This broad Correlate, enhanced communication pulling together the home, school, and community domains, holds significant promise to increase school effectiveness as it overlaps, rather than separates, each partner's sphere of influence. Summary and Conclusions The Journal for Effective Schools website shows the following Effective Schools Correlates: � A clearly stated and focused mission on learning for all 31
Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools
Volume 7, Number 1 ● ●
● ● ● ●
A safe and orderly environment for learning Uncompromising commitment to high expectations for all Instructional leadership Opportunity to learn is paramount Frequent monitoring of progress Enhanced communication
Almost forty years of research affirm that school reform based on the effective implementation of these Correlates enhances student achievement. As research methods have become more sophisticated, the studies examining these Correlates have become more rigorous. As Marzano (2003) stated, My premise is that if we follow the guidance offered from 35 years of research, we can enter an era of unprecedented effectiveness for the public practice of education−−one in which the vast majority of schools can be highly effective in promoting student learning. (p. 1) Knowing what is known, one must ask why all schools and school districts don't make a determined effort to apply this research in practice. Educators, students, parents, and communities have much to gain. References Bandura, A. (1992, April). Perceived selfefficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Invited address at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Bangert-Downs, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effects of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213-238. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
Spring 2008
Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Brookover, W. B., & Lezotte, L. (1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident with changes in school achievement. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Bucknam, R. B. (1976). The impact of EBCE: An evaluator's viewpoint. Illinois Career Education Journal, 33(3), 32-36. Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for learning. New York, NY: Guildford Press. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute. Cizek, G. J. (2001). Conjectures on the rise and call of standard setting: An introduction to ontext and practice. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 3-18). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, M. (1983). Instructional, management and social conditions in effective schools. In A. O. Webb & L. D. Webb (Eds.), School finance and school improvement: Linkages in the 1980s. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfield, F. D., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Davies, D. (1991). Schools reaching out: Family, school, and community partnerships for student success. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(5), 376-382. Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do race and income matter? The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 11-30. Edmonds, R. R. (1979). A discussion of the literature and issues related to effective schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 32 William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan
Journal for Effective Schools
Graduate School of Education, Center for Urban Studies. Edmonds, R. R. (1982, December). Programs of school improvement: An overview. Educational Leadership, 40(3), 4-11. Epstein, J. L. (1995, May). School/family/ community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701-712. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Goddard, R. D., Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). Academic emphasis and student achievement. A multi-level analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 5, 683-702. Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Teacher trust in students and parents: A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in urban elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 102, 3-17. Goddard, R. D., LoGerfo, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2003, April). Collective efficacy and student achievement in public high school: A path analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Grogger, J. (1997). Local violence and educational attainment. The Journal of Human Resources, 32(4), 659-692. Haller, E. P., Child, D. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1988). Can comprehension be taught? A quantitative synthesis of "metacognitive studies." Educational Researcher, 17(9), 5-8. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1986). The social context of effective schools. American Journal of Education, 94(3), 328-355. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191. Hambleton, R. K. (2001). Setting performance
standards on educational assessments and criteria for evaluating the process. In G. L. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 89116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hattie, J. A. (1992). Measuring the effects of schooling. Australian Journal of Education, 36(1) 5-13. Husen, T. (Ed.). (1967). International study of achievement in mathematics (Vols. 1-2). New York, NY: Wiley and Sons. Jencks, C., Smith, M. S., Ackland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Grintlis, H., et al. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effects of family and schooling in America. New York, NY: Basic Books. Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39, 1-123. Kaplan, L., & Owings, W. (2007). Effective schools movement: History, analysis, and application. Pocatello, ID: Idaho State University, Journal for Effective Schools. Kumar, D. D. (1991). A meta-analysis of the relationship between science instruction and student engagement. Education Review, 43(1), 49-66. Learning 24/7. (2005). Classroom observation study. Study presented at the meeting of the National Conference on Standards and Assessment, Las Vegas, NV. Lee, V., Bryk, A., & Smith, J. (1993). The organization of effective secondary schools. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Research in Education, (pp. 171-226). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, K. S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research (1996-2005). Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177-199. 33
Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools
Volume 7, Number 1
Levine, D., & Lezotte, L. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective School Research and Practice. Lezotte, L. (1991). Correlates of effective schools: The first and second generation. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products, Ltd. Lightfoot, S. (1983). The good high school: Portraits of character and culture. New York, NY: Basic Books. Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48(12), 1181-1209. MacKenzie, D. (1983). Research for school improvement: An appraisal of some recent trends. Educational Researcher, 12(4), 5-16. Madaus, G. F., Airasian, P. W., & Kellaghan, T. (1980). School effectiveness: A reassessment of the evidence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Mayer, D. P., Mullens, J. E., Moore, M. T., & Ralph, J. (2000). Monitoring school quality: An indicator's report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. McMillan, J. H. (2000). Basic assessment concepts for teachers and administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Miller, R. J., & Rowan, B. (2006). Effects of organic management on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 219-253. OFSTED. (1993). Access and achievement in urban education. London, UK: HMSO. Orlich, D. C. (1989, March). Education reforms;
Spring 2008
Mistakes, misconceptions, miscues. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(7), 512-517. Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427-452. Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Reichardt, R. (2002). Opportunity to learn policies and practices in high-performing, high-needs schools and districts. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teachers' expectations and pupils' intellectual development. New York, NY: Rineholt and Winston. Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key characteristics of effective schools: A review of school effectiveness research. London, UK: International School Effectiveness and Improvement Centre. Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. New York, NY: Elsevier. Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1994). Views from the field: Lining school effectiveness and school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(2), 149-177. Sun, H., Creemers, B., & deJong, R. (2007). Contextual factors in school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(1), 93-122. Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference: Lessons learned from a 10 year study of school effects. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Teddlie, C., Stringfield, S., & Reynolds, D. (2000). Context issues within school 34 William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan
Journal for Effective Schools
effectiveness research. In C. Teddlie and D. Reynolds, The international handbook of school effectiveness research (pp. 160-185). New York. NY: The Falmer Press. The Education Trust. (2005, November). Gaining traction, gaining ground: How some high schools accelerate learning for struggling students. Washington, DC: Author. Tizard, J., Schofield, W., & Hewison, J. (1982). Symposium: Reading collaboration between teachers and parents in assisting children's reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52(1), 1-15. United States Department of Education. (1987). What works: Research about teaching and learning (Rev. Ed.). Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. Vandergrift, J. A., & Greene, A. L. (1992). Rethinking parent involvement. Educational Leadership, 50(1), 57-59. Venezky, R., & Winfield, L. (1979). Schools that succeed beyond expectations in teaching reading. Newark, DE: University of Delaware. Walberg, H. J. (1999). Productive teaching. In H. C. Waxman and H. J. Walberg (Eds.), New directions for teaching practice and research (pp. 75-104). Berkeley, CA: McCutchen Publishing Corporation. Wilkins, J. (1997). Modeling correlates of problem-solving skills: Effects of opportunity-to-learn on the attainment of higher-order thinking skills in mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
End Notes 1. While Gene Glass, considered the father of the meta-analysis, cautions against reporting average correlations in meta-analysis, Marzano reports it because it is still the most commonly used currency for discussing the meta-analytic findings in educational research. More commonly, researchers report graphs indicating the range and frequency of findings. Marzano relays this information as a range in correlations from -.03 to .62. He further examined the rigor of the studies as high, medium, or low. The lower third of studies had the lowest average correlations while the higher third had higher correlations (.17 versus .31). Author Note Leslie S. Kaplan is a retired school administrator and presently an educational researcher and writer. William A. Owings is former school administrator and currently a Professor of Educational Leadership at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. They are coauthors of four textbooks, two monographs, dozens of articles in refereed professional journals on topics of school leadership and teacher quality for student achievement, school finance, and the upcoming, Effective Schools Movement: History, Analysis, and Application
35 Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools
Volume 7, Number 1
Spring 2008
The Effective Schools Correlate -- Instructional Leadership: San Diego's Application John J. Marshak Virginia Commonwealth University An examination of meta-analyses is presented to support the contention that there is little research on the connection of a school system's effort to provide instructional supervision and student achievement. Only conclusions such as its being a "secondary," "indirect," and a significant contributor to the educational component of the variance in student achievement scores can be found. Based on the elements of instructional supervision as proffered by the Research on Effective Schools Correlates, a four-year case study of the San Diego, California, Public Schools is reviewed. The major revision in supervision philosophy and its implementation are portrayed. To assess the effect of this new direction, the shift in the distribution from the last two quartiles, to the first two, on state testing is presented. As further evidence of success, the district's steady increase on the state's Academic Performance Index for five years after the study is provided.
Introduction In this era of educational accountability, the call for the principal to be an instructional leader is ever louder. The assumption is that a leader's supervision of instruction will lead to improved student achievement. What has the research to say on this relationship as stated in the Effective Schools Instructional Leadership Correlate? As Glanz, Schulman, and Sullivan (2007) put it, "the absence of research on the impact of supervision specifically related to achievement has been lamented at many Council of Professors of Instructional Supervision (COPIS) and American Educational Research Association Special Interest Groups (AERA-SIG) annual meetings and during informal conversations among professors of supervision" (p. 5). Much of the research focuses on the effects of leadership, in general, on student learning and "is unclear, at best" (Nettles & Harrington, 2007, p. 725). To start the examination, Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of
5,000 studies, starting with those from the 1970s. The researchers produced a list of twenty-one leadership behaviors that significantly correlate with student achievement. Monitoring is the one that comes closest to instructional supervision. This was described as monitoring the effectiveness of school practices on the curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Marzano and colleagues went on to publish findings with prescriptions for practice (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Nowhere, therein, was instructional supervision addressed. This was not an atypical treatment of the topic. References pointed to the indirect nature of this relationship. A review of the literature by Glanz, Shulman, and Sullivan (2007) reported the conclusion drawn by Levin (2006) that educational leadership "does not produce a direct effect on student learning, but is a mediating influence on teachers, curriculum, instruction, community, and school organization" (p. 40). Reinforcing this indirect value of leadership are findings of Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004). 36 John J. Marshak
Journal for Effective Schools
In a recent comprehensive study attempting to make such connections, the authors concluded, "leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to what students learn at school" (p. 3). The authors did go further, within the parameters of the study, to avow that "successful leadership can play a highly significant−−and frequently underestimated−−role in improving student learning" (p. 3). Again, this did not, specifically, address instructional leadership. Hallinger and Heck (1996) identified and examined approximately forty studies conducted between 1980 and 1995 that displayed sufficient rigor and used sophisticated methodologies. They included studies that investigated principals' effects on student achievement measures, whether those effects were direct or indirect. The study concluded that research incorporating sophisticated modeling methods showed the effects of school-level leadership on individual student achievement were generally small; however, these results appeared to be educationally significant in relation to the small proportion of student level variance that can be explained outside of student-related variables. In this sample of studies, school leadership effects were shown to explain only up to 5% of the total variance. Although this amount of explained variance seems small, it represented approximately 25% of the total variability explained by school-related variables. In looking further for research more specific to instructional leadership, the following data were found. In recent decades, the importance of effective instructional leadership on school performance has been well documented in the literature (Gates, Ross, & Brewer, 2001; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). Although there are numerous constructs by which the components of effective leadership are defined, there is also a great deal of similarity
among them. A consensus on the definition of effective school leadership is far from being reached (Nettles & Harrington, 2007, p. 726). Among the elements considered common critical factors by Nettles and Harrington (2007) were stakeholder involvement and professional development, both strongly represented in the Correlate of Effective Schools' perspective on instructional leadership. "Although initially coming from the principal, teacher, or administrator, the goal is to include all participants as instructional leaders as their knowledge expands as a result of staff development. New insights excite and inspire. In the accountable learning community, everyone is a student and all can be leaders" (Idaho State University, n.d., p. 2). This position is supported by findings that effective principals have been shown to (a) build the leadership capacity of teachers and staff, (b) encourage team learning focused on school-wide goals, (c) use organizational flexibility to enhance effectiveness, and (d) distribute leadership responsibilities throughout the school (Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). What studies support this contention that an instructional supervision model that provides this broad-based involvement and introduces additional knowledge that inspires instruction will impact how well student succeed? A detailed case study of one school district presents an example. It demonstrates the principles of creating a learning community based on staff development and the distributed leadership responsibilities across a school system and its positive effect on student achievement. San Diego's Reform Instructional Leadership for Systematic Change: The Story of San Diego's Reform, a book by Darling-Hammond and colleagues (2005) was the product of a study sponsored by the Center 37
The Effective Schools Correlate - Instructional Leadership: San Diego’s Application
Volume 7, Number 1
for the Study of Teaching and Learning, with funding from the U.S. Office of Educational Research and Development Centers Program, PR/Award Number R308B970003. It examined the process by which that school district took significant steps in changing the way they do business. In the summer of 1998, the San Diego Unified School District in California launched a major reform movement. The district hired Alan Bersin, the former U.S. attorney of the southern District of California and the southwest border as Superintendent of Schools. Anthony Alvarado was selected as the Chancellor of Instruction. Alvarado had been the Superintendent of New York's Community School District No. 2. Bersin managed the district's political, business, and organizational aspects while Alvarado assumed responsibility for instructional aspects. This consisted of "establishing a professional accountability system, concentrating all decision making around issues of teaching quality, creating an infrastructure of reforms to improve the knowledge and skills of all personnel, and instituting a tightly coupled instructional-change process with a strong focus on equality as well as quality. Together, this pair sought to anchor the school system with research on teaching and learning" (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2005, p. 11). Selecting improvement in student literacy as the first goal, the authors designed a four-pronged approach. First, assistant superintendents were replaced with seven newly promoted principals to serve as instructional leaders. Each of the former principals had demonstrated high levels of understanding and skill as instructional leaders in their schools. The initial group training during the first summer of the reform consisted of observing actual practices and participating in literacy activities. In the second prong, the instructional leaders accepted responsibility for
Spring 2008
seven "learning communities" of principals. They held monthly conferences for the principals "to learn about leading school staffs in highquality instructional practices" (Darling-Hammond, et al. 2005, p. 21). The conferences took many forms. They included visits to successful local classrooms, discussions with international experts on topics such as teaching techniques, and examinations of student performance data. Instructional leaders visited the principals' schools at least three times a year and as often as monthly. The purposes of these visits were to evaluate the site's progress, observe classroom practices, and assist in identifying specific instructional practices that needed additional support. In this way, principals' competencies were strengthened as instructional leaders by learning how to better assist teachers to incorporate professional learning from staff development (the third prong) into the classrooms. This included improving the principals' ability to evaluate the quality of instruction. Teacher staff development was intensive and focused on literacy. During summers and intercessions, as many as 150 classes were offered to teachers each year. They ranged in length from one to seven days with a $15 per hour reimbursement for attendance. Principals periodically received lists of the teachers and what training they received. In this way, principals remained informed about the instructional staff members' knowledge level, in addition to teacher, withinschool, professional development activities. The last element, the fourth prong, of this process provided a network of university trained and certified peer coaches/staff developers. These were accomplished teachers identified by school principals and who expressed an interest in working with peers. The peer coaches/staff developers received assignments to schools to work directly with classroom teachers on instructional practices. Because the training extended 38 John J. Marshak
Journal for Effective Schools
beyond the teacher professional development, the peer coaches could assist teachers to implement the newly learned theories and strategies into the classrooms. By the second year, every school had at least one full-time peer coach/staff developer. (It is interesting to note that a major part of the funding for these positions was through a state-sponsored program for mentoring new teachers.) Although not all teachers, particularly those with more years experience than the coaches, were receptive of the coaches' role, it greatly increased communication between teachers. This focused professional interaction contributed to breaking down "the notion that a classroom is a private preserve [which] is a value that still exists in the world and is inconsistent with the professionalization of teaching" (Bersin as cited in DarlingHammond, et al., 2005, p. 17). Since the coaches were not responsible for teachers' summative evaluations, communication was much more open than it would have been with the principal, even with his or her expanded role. Each of the four prongs made a unique contribution to the development of a true, learning community for the San Diego City Schools. It was: . . . a forceful district-led agenda that turned many traditional notions of the relationship between bureaucracy and innovation upside down. It sought to empower teachers and principals at the "bottom" of the system to solve problems more effectively by organizing intensive professional-development opportunities that would enhance their expertise and by creating a culture of shared norms of practice from the "top" and "bottom" simultaneously. At the same time, the district attempted to change the culture of a large organization and move it quickly in a common direction with strong interventions from the top of the system that affected every aspect of operations through-out the enterprise . . . This
created a paradoxical situation in which those being empowered with greater knowledge felt less empowered and autonomous in making many decisions, especially during the first three years of the reform. (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005, p. 183) There was, however, a price to pay for this forcefulness. The reform process had trade-offs and side effects. One was the increased in-school stratification created by the Literacy-Block classes targeted at low-achieving students. Another was the loss of team teaching and planning opportunities in some schools as they bent structures to implement the new initiatives. The above would appear to be counter to the Leadership Correlate's contention to include all participants as instructional leaders. However, the authors note, as the reform's norms became institutionalized, "there were signs that the district was becoming more comfortable with negotiating flexibility in some aspect of implementation with local schools and more responsive in listening to both concerns and ideas from those in the field, as long as they lay within the parameters of professional practice and equity set out as the goalpost of the work" (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005, p. 186). This would imply that the reorganization and refocusing efforts necessitated a top down leadership strategy to move the system in a new direction. However, once the direction became clear via an intensive and consistent staff development program, the upper levels of the administration were willing to entertain input from the field. As that occurred, all participants functioned as instructional leaders in the change process. San Diego's Results It is important to understand the school district's student population before reviewing the results. The San Diego Unified School Division, on its website, provides the following demographic description of its students for the time period in question and subsequently. 39
The Effective Schools Correlate - Instructional Leadership: San Diego’s Application
Volume 7, Number 1
Spring 2008
Table 1 Percent of San Diego Students by Various Demographic Categories Year
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
K-12 Enrollment
141,409
141,171
140,753
137,960
134,709
Hispanic
38.5
39.7
40.9
41.9
42.6
White
27.0
26.6
26.2
25.9
25.8
African American
16.2
15.6
15.0
14.5
14.2
Asian
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.1
Filipino
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.5
7.2
Indo-Chinese
6.1
5.9
5.7
5.6
5.6
Pacific Islander
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Native American
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
Free & Reduced Lunch
57.3
56.3
56.4
55.5
57.1
ESL
28.1
29.6
29.4
28.4
28.3
Over the five-year period for which data are available, the drop in total enrollment was almost five percent, but the ethnic distribution saw changes of two percent or less, with the exception of the Hispanic population. Also, there was very small variation in the sizable percentages of English as a Second Language (ESL) and certified eligible-for-meal-cost-reduction students. No demographic data for 1999-2000 (the early stages of the reform) were available, especially as related to the increase in those taking the state test.
Darling-Hammond and colleagues (2005) presented a limited summary of San Diego students' results on the State of California's assessment tests (SAT-9) to support the contention that Alvarado's and Bresin's efforts to create a learning community to support instruction based on research succeeded. The data covering the years from 1998 to 2002 were presented in two forms. The first is a report of the distribution of the district students' scores, in quartiles, for all grade levels tested (2-11) over the five years of the study. A comparison of the pre-reform and fifth-year performances of students appears in Table 2. 40 John J. Marshak
Journal for Effective Schools
Table 2 Percent of Students Scoring in Each Quartile on the National Distribution (SAT-9) Grades 2-11 Combined TOTAL READING Year
TOTAL MATH
1998
2001
1998
2001
Quartile 1
36
29
31
24
Quartile 2
23
24
24
23
Quartile 3
21
23
21
23
Quartile 4
20
24
24
30
The reduction in the percentage of students in the first quartile and the increase in the number of students in the fourth quartile over the five-year period in both reading and math is apparent. The overall distribution is approaching the national distribution (25 percent in each quartile) with work still to be done on those in the first quartile in reading. However, the increased percentage of students achieving in the fourth quartile in math is noteworthy.
The second report format showed the percentage of students in the highest two quartiles for each grade level, for grades 2 to 11, in reading and math. The most dramatic, double-digit, increases in the percentage of students in the top two quartiles over the five year period were seen in the earliest three grades for reading, and earliest four grades for math, and are clear in Table 3.
Table 3 Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the 50th Percentile on SAT-9 TOTAL READING Year
TOTAL MATH
1998
2002
% Change
1998
2002
% Change
Grade 2
43
61
+18
50
64
+14
Grade 3
41
52
+11
46
64
+18
Grade 4
41
51
+10
42
55
+13
Grade 5
44
49
+5
45
55
+10 41
The Effective Schools Correlate - Instructional Leadership: San Diego’s Application
Volume 7, Number 1
Spring 2008
Table 3 (Continued) Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the 50th Percentile on SAT-9 TOTAL READING Year
1998
2002
Grade 6
43
50
Grade 7
44
Grade 8
TOTAL MATH % Change
1998
2002
+7
47
55
+8
49
+5
42
50
+8
45
52
+7
40
46
+6
Grade 9
36
37
+1
48
54
+6
Grade 10
34
35
+1
42
46
+4
Grade 11
37
40
+3
45
51
+6
As is apparent, movement into the top two quartiles for the other grades (6-11) was also positive, but in the single digits. Since the initial instructional changes focused on the lower grades, a distribution such as this is understandable. It is important to observe that during these years, both a greater percentage of San Diego's students and the actual number of students tested increased. By 2001, most schools were testing 98 percent of students, an increase of about 20 percent, while the actual number of students rose from 86,635 to 93,626 (in reading) over the five years. This is an important change in the test population due to the school district's demographics. The student population, as a whole, included a much larger proportion of low-income students and students of color than the state. As construed from Table 1, 75 percent were minority, almost 60 percent qualified for free and reduced lunch, and over 30 percent were designated as limited English proficient. It is more than likely
% Change
that these students previous excluded from testing due to limited potential for success had begun to benefit from the reform and returned to the testing population. With these students' inclusion in the testing, even without sophisticated analysis techniques being applied, the magnitude of positive achievement change that occurred can be appreciated. For the years following the study, San Diego's Standard, Assessment and Accountability Division reports indicate continued growth. The most comprehensive measure available for this is the Academic Performance Index (API). As stated on the website, this instrument: helps measure the academic performance and growth of schools. It is a numeric index (or scale) that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. A school's score or placement on the API is an indicator of a school's performance level. The interim statewide API performance target for all schools is 800. A school's growth 42 John J. Marshak
Journal for Effective Schools
is measured by how well it is moving toward (or past) that goal. The API was established in 1999 through the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA). (San Diego Unified School District, n.d.)
A more comprehensive, historical set of data on San Diego's subsequent progress is found on California's State Department of Education (Data Quest, 2007) website. From a series of its annual reports, Table 4 was constructed.
Table 4 Progress in Attaining Target Scores on State of California Testing
Year
Number of Students in Grades 2-11
Percent of Students Tested
API Score
Increase Over Previous Year
2001-02
91,213
98%
677
2002-03
92,277
99%
697
+20
2003-04
90,284
99%
713
+14
2004-05
88,276
99%
728
+15
2005-06
84,715
731
+3
2006-07
83,327
735
+4
Note: Blanks and slight value differences are due to discrepancies in year-to-year reporting.
The increase in annual API scores is clear. They are approaching the current state specified target level of 800 but at a slower rate. Likewise, the percentage of students eligible for testing who are tested appears to be maintained, assuming the trend continues. Summary San Diego presents a clear example of a school system's concerted effort to change how school leadership impacts classroom instruction and student achievement by replacing assistant superintendents with instructional leaders, each responsible for supervising a small group of principals, and decentralized responsibility and
leadership. These principals received monthly training about creating learning communities in the schools. Classroom teachers' perceptions of independence and isolation broke down. By the study's end, each school had a full-time peer coach/staff development person providing non-threatening feedback to teachers on implementation of the new instructional strategies provided by an intensive professional development program. As direction became clear and buy-in occurred, higher levels of administration were willing to accept input from the field on improving the delivery system. This is all consistent with the Instructional Leadership Correlate. 43
The Effective Schools Correlate - Instructional Leadership: San Diego’s Application
Volume 7, Number 1
The state testing results clearly indicate the increase in student achievement over the first five years of the change. For all grade levels, the system moved from more students in the lowest two quartiles of the national distribution to almost having 25 percent in each of the four. Even more encouraging was the double-digit increase in the percent of student in the top two quartiles in reading and math for the lower three grades. Changing criteria to API scores for the most recent years has witnessed an ever increasing progression toward the state-specified target level. The achievement level of 735 as of this writing is clearly within reach of the 800 mark. The slowing rate of approach is worthy of mention. This case study focused on program implementation designed to provide increased instructional leadership to a school district to increase student achievement. It exemplifies almost all the Effective Schools Instructional Leadership Correlate characteristics. References Darling-Hammond, L., Hightower, A. M., Husbands, J. L., LaFors, J. R., Young, V. M., & Christopher, C. (2005). Instructional leadership for systemic change: The story of San Diego's reform. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education. Data Quest. (2007, October). Academic performance index (API) report. Available at http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/API/ APISearchName.asp?TheYear=&cTopic= API&cLevel=District&cName= San^Diego&cCounty=&cTimeFrame=S Gates, S., Ross, K., & Brewer, D. (2001). Leading to reform: Educational leadership for the 21st Century. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Spring 2008
Glanz, J., Shulman, V., & Sullivan, S. (2007, April). Impact of instructional supervision on student achievement: Can we make the connection? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED496124) Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-95. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44. Idaho State University. (n.d.) Publication guidelines. Pocatello, ID: Author, Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness, Journal for Effective Schools. Available from http://icee.isu.edu/Journal/ PublicationGuidelines.pdf Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning (Executive Summary). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Levin, H. M. (2006). Can research improve educational leadership? Educational Researcher, 35(8), 38-43. Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Nettles, S., & Harrington, C. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 724-736. Purkey, S., & Smith, M. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 427-452. Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & WaltherThomas, C. S. (2002). A comparison of outcomes for middle school students with 44 John J. Marshak
Journal for Effective Schools
learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68, 203-222. San Diego Unified School District. (n.d.). Academic performance index (API). San Diego, CA: Author. Available at http://www.sandi.net/assessment/api/ index.htm Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement: A working paper. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continental Regional Educational Lab.
John J. Marshak is an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University. His areas of specialization and research are best practices in school leadership, school finance policy development, courtordered state educational finance reform, and NAEP data investigation. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John J. Marshak, Virginia Commonwealth University, Oliver Hall, Room 2105, 1015 West Main Street, P.O. Box 842020, Richmond, Virginia 23284-2020. E-mail: jjmarshak@vcu.edu
45 The Effective Schools Correlate - Instructional Leadership: San Diego’s Application
Volume 7, Number 1
Spring 2008
Using Effective Schools Research to Promote Culturally Competent Leadership Practice Karen S. Crum Old Dominion University Whitney H. Sherman Virginia Commonwealth University Student demographics have become progressively multicultural, but equitable educational outcomes are not often evident (Gordon, 2006; Erford, House, & Martin, 2007). Because Effective Schools Research and identified Correlates have been proven as effective in schools that enact them, the authors take a closer look at what these Correlates imply for an increasingly diverse school population and how they might work to support current calls for culturally competent leadership. Two Correlates of the Effective Schools Research−−Uncompromising Commitment to High Expectations for All and Enhanced Communication−−are linked with what the literature says about culturally competent leadership practice to provide a more comprehensive picture of what effective leadership looks like in an increasingly multicultural school environment. In conclusion, recommendations for K-12 leaders and leadership preparation programs for fostering effective school environments that are responsive to the diverse needs of the students are provided. Student demographics in the United States have increasingly become diversified (Reitumetse & Madsen, 2005). According to Lim and A'OleBoune (2005), 43 percent of children currently being served by public schools are non-White; future projections indicate that this trend will continue until the majority of students are individuals of color by the year 2020 (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006; Meyer & Rhoades, 2006; Marbley, Bonner, McKisick, Henfield, & Watts, 2007). Further confounding this trend toward an American melting pot is the prediction that onequarter of the student population will be living in poverty or homeless by 2020 (Gardiner & Enomoto). Currently, over five million students in the United States are English language learners resulting in over 400 languages being spoken in schools on a daily basis (Klotz, 2008). Though student demographics have become progressively multicultural, equitable educational outcomes are not often evident (Gordon, 2006; Erford, House, & Martin, 2007). In spite of
research demonstrating the effectiveness of Correlates for some in the Effective Schools Research, these practices have not successfully been brought to scale. Because Effective Schools Research and identified Correlates have been proven as effective in schools that enact them, it is helpful to take a closer look at what these Correlates imply for an increasingly diverse school population and how they might work to support current calls for culturally competent leadership. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act demands a greater focus on subgroups and minorities and that schools work with all students more intensely to ensure high academic achievement. Furthermore, research on ethical leadership maintains that, even outside of the requirements of NCLB, advocacy for all students is a moral imperative (Starratt, 1994) and a requirement for culturally competent leadership. Furthermore, many believe that to affect change and, in turn, impact all students through the elimination of the achievement gap, culturally responsive leadership is needed (Growe, 46 Karen S. Crum and Whitney H. Sherman
Journal for Effective Schools
Schmersahl, Perry, & Henry, 2002; Hines & Fields, 2004). The article begins with a brief history of the achievement gap between racial groups and students of varying social economic status and is followed by an exploration of two selected Effective Schools Correlates−−Uncompromising Commitment to High Expectations for All and Enhanced Communication−−that the authors believe have significant implications for fostering effective school environments when combined with best practices identified in the literature on culturally competent leadership. Because the overarching intent of this paper is to encourage effective leadership practice and school environments in which all students succeed, recommendations for practicing leaders and institutions of higher education are shared. Achievement, Diversity, and Socioeconomic Status Educational opportunity and academic achievement are directly tied to the social divisions associated with race, ethnicity, gender, first language, and social class. (Gordon, 2006, p. 25) The achievement gap is the pattern of difference in success rates between White and minority students over a number of school indicators including: test scores; retention rates, dropout rates, and college entrance rates (Sherman & Grogan, 2003). Students of color and students from low-income families have historically performed lower than White middle class students on achievement assessments of vocabulary, reading, and mathematics, as well as on measurements of scholastic aptitude and intelligence (Gordon, 2006; Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Singham, 1998). During the 1970s, African-American and Latino students performed poorly on both standardized mathematics
tests (34-36 point difference) and reading achievement assessments (34-53 point difference) compared to Caucasian counterparts (Gordon). Despite large point differences, evidence supports the notion that a reduction in the achievement gap was also occurring. However, progress made toward closing the gap in the 1970s practically ceased during the 1990s (Gordon) and more recent data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show the achievement gaps remain large between White students and students of color, even in light of the implementation of NCLB. Multiple factors work together to create and sustain achievement gaps. According to Bennett (2007), the percentage of children living in families with low-economic status is increasing (Bailey, Getch, & Chen-Hayes, 2007)−−nearly 40 percent of children are with families who have "precariously low income" (p. 245). To further complicate an understanding of the achievement gap, African Americans are three times more likely to come from poverty than Caucasians (Viadero, 2000) and create an intersection between race, poverty, and achievement. According to Day-Vines and Day-Hairston (2005), students in the third grade receiving free and reduced lunch are 8.1 months behind non-free and reduced lunch counterparts in mathematics and 9.7 months behind in reading. At the middle school level, eighth grade students from middle class and affluent families score below basic math proficiency levels at only a rate of 25%, compared to students with low socioeconomic backgrounds at 56%. Pathways to Success for All Students While the interaction of all of the Correlates identified in Effective Schools Research leads to the greatest potential for student achievement, two of the Correlates: High Expectations and Enhanced Communication, have significant 47
Using Effective Schools Research to Promote Culturally Competent Leadership Practice
Volume 7, Number 1
and rectifying school practices that have, historically, underserved or, in some cases, ignored minority students. However, the intent of this paper is to push boundaries and delve deeper into actions at both the K-12 and higher education levels that will lead to achievement for all students by reviewing Effective Schools literature along with research that gives importance to cultural competence to provide readers with a more complete set of strategies from which to choose when seeking to improve success. Effective Schools Correlate: Uncompromising Commitment to High Expectations for All A teacher's belief about students' chances of success in school influence the teacher's actions with students, which in turn influence students' achievement. If the teacher believes students can succeed, she tends to behave in ways that help them succeed. If the teacher believes that students cannot succeed, she unwittingly tends to behave in ways that subvert student success or at least do not facilitate student success. (Marzano, 2007, p. 162) According to Effective Schools Research, school environments must demonstrate an Uncompromising Commitment to High Expectations for All students to flourish because of the Correlate's centrality to student achievement. A solid body of research supports the value of setting high achievement expectations for all students to support student success (Brown & Medway, 2007; Goddard, Scott, & Hoy, 2000; Kaplan & Owings, 2007; Kelley Heneman, & Milanowski, 2002; Lee and Bowen, 2006; Waxman & Huang, 1997). Kelley and colleagues found that "teachers' average expectancy was a significant predictor" (p. 393) of whether or not the corresponding schools would reach specified achievement goals. Further, expectations are not limited to the scope of academics; rather, schools supporting an atmosphere of high expectations promote a
Spring 2008
culture where "every student is expected to behave and perform well" and where "[t]eachers and counselors prepare students for life after high school−−specifically for college and careers−−rather than merely for high school graduation" (Kaplan & Owings, p. 8). Schools and staff with a strong academic emphasis, as noted by Goddard, Scott, and Hoy (2000), reported a significant impact on student achievement. Goddard and colleagues operationalized the definition of academic emphasis as an environment where "teachers set reasonable goals and believe in their students' abilities to achieve . . . " (p. 698). Teachers and principals in 45 elementary schools were surveyed about academic emphasis and using hierarchical linear modeling, the researchers found that this could be significantly attributed to student achievement. Academic emphasis explained approximately 50% of student performance variability (47.4% for mathematics and 50.4% for reading). Importantly, this type of focus on beliefs in students' abilities and the power of goal setting has also been purported to positively impact poor and minority student achievement (Goddard, et al.). Waxman and Huang's (1997) research supported the notion by Effective Schools' proponents that successful schools promote a culture of high expectations. In an effort to learn if there were "significant differences between effective and ineffective urban schools" (p. 16) in relation to student behavior, as well as motivation and perceptions, a study was conducted in eight urban elementary schools located in one large urban school system with predominately AfricanAmerican (> 90%) students. Using an Analysis of Variance, the statistically significant findings indicated that African American students in urban elementary schools were more achievement motivated than peers in ineffective schools, had higher academic self-concepts, were more 48 Karen S. Crum and Whitney H. Sherman
Journal for Effective Schools
task oriented, and reported significantly higher levels of aspirations. According to Hess (1999), high teacher expectations have a powerful influence on student performance. He asserted that a major component of the reform movement in Chicago Public Schools was the need to change the expectation levels of the staff members to support high student achievement, as demonstrated in numerous studies at the local and national levels. Thus, school cultures that support all students and encourage success have demonstrably led to higher levels of achievement. Interested in delving deeper into the affect of having high expectations for all students on achievement, Hoy, Tarter, and Hoy (2006) investigated the impact of academic optimism, as a necessary condition for high expectations, on student achievement in 96 high schools. Three primary variables were measured including: academic emphasis; collective efficacy; and faculty trust in parents in students. Academic optimism was found to be significantly related to student achievement. Additionally, results revealed that "academic optimism can be conceived as an important latent school property that can be attributed to the school" (p. 437). Along similar lines, Stewart (2008) examined the linkages between individual and school level structural characteristics and the relation to achievement. Data from the 1990 National Center for Education Statistics were analyzed as well as school characteristic data from administrators and teachers. Using hierarchical linear modeling, Stewart found that both "school attachment and school commitment were significantly associated with academic achievement" (p. 197). While educators may have high expectations for student achievement, communicating these
expectations through well-developed relationships is vital. O'Connor and McCartney (2007) found that quality teacher-child relationships were positively associated with achievement and that, from the time they were born until sixth grade, "children's achievement at third grade was influenced by early cognitive ability . . . teacherchild relationships, child classroom instruction, teachers' academic instruction" (p. 363) among other variables. Further, the relationships formed by the teacher and child and the positive impact on achievement were found to be "particularly robust." Thus, while staff members may have high levels of expectations for the students in the school, the relationships formed are vital to the successful communication of high expectations. Effective Schools Communication
Correlate:
Enhanced
One of the most consistent and seemingly uncontroversial findings in the education literature concerns the importance of parent involvement for children's learning and schools' success. (Henig, Hula, Orr, & Pedescleaux, 1999, p. 155) High expectations are integral to student achievement, and, therefore, the way in which expectations are communicated also significantly impacts achievement. Further, communication is more than a didactic one-way method for relaying information and, instead, involves a cyclic process of conveying and receiving knowledge between the school, home, and community. Research supports the notion that the environments surrounding schools are important for the development of children (Condley, 2006). According to Kaplan and Owings (2007), effective schools are ones that "work closely with the community and parents to support their children's education." and where "[b]usiness and community partnerships aid students' preparation 49
Using Effective Schools Research to Promote Culturally Competent Leadership Practice
Volume 7, Number 1
for postsecondary opportunities" (p. 9). Similarly, Riehl (2000) asserted that schools cannot operate as islands isolated from the surrounding needs and concerns of the communities from which their students come from. In fact, effective administrators understand these interorganizational and community dynamics and seek to position schools to take advantage of positive resources offered by other institutions, to buffer students (and the school) from the negative impact of other institutions and sometimes the community itself, and to provide services that meet students' needs while also strengthening the communities in which they live. (p. 66) Research on school reform movements supports Effective Schools Research and identified Correlates, particularly the importance of communication (Condley, 2006; Duke, 2007; Kim & Crasco, 2006; Lee & Bowen, 2006; Stewart, 2008). Kim and Crasco (2006) reported on the best practices and policies of the Urban Systemic Initiative program that examine six different educational reform drivers, one of which was broad-based support. Broad-based support was comprised of the stakeholders, community members, and partners involved with the districts. Broad-based support was found to have a significant impact on student achievement in the districts examined. This is reflective in the larger understanding in the Effective Schools movement that a combination of factors (Correlates) impact student achievement. Duke (2007) studied fifteen successful turnaround schools at the elementary level that had maintained successful changes within their schools for at least two years prior to the study and found that all but one of the identified schools used effective communication practices
Spring 2008
to facilitate parent involvement. In fact, the turnaround schools used a variety of practices that were aimed at incorporating families and businesses into the school environment including: encouraging parental participation within the classroom setting; sending home regular reports about student progress; the development or improvement of parental involvement programs; the development of a parent resource center; and offering a parenting class. Undoubtedly, communication, in combination with other factors, contributes to student achievement. However, several researchers have found that communication can also singularly impact school effectiveness. Using hierarchical multiple regression analysis, Lee and Bowen (2006) found that parental involvement explained a significant percentage of variance in academic achievement among the study participants. In fact, involvement by parents can counteract educational levels of the families (Lee & Bowen). Jeynes (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies that focused on the impact of parental involvement on student achievement to learn if "parental involvement [can] really improve the educational outcomes of urban children" (p. 83). Using regression analysis, Jeynes determined that the overall effect size was statistically significant. The impact of parental involvement was high across cultural populations and provides solid evidence for schools to develop and implement activities that support families. Though research supports the Effective Schools Correlates, Enhanced Communication and High Expectations, as student demographics become increasingly multicultural, equitable outcomes are less and less evident (Gordon, 2006; Erford, House, & Martin, 2007). Because Effective Schools Research and identified Correlates have been proven as effective in schools that enact them, it is helpful to take a closer look at what these Correlates imply for an increasingly 50 Karen S. Crum and Whitney H. Sherman
Journal for Effective Schools
diverse school population and how they might work to support recent demands for increased cultural sensitivity combined with calls for culturally competent leadership and multicultural curriculum practices. Doing so enhances what is already known about good practice in regard to communication and high expectations and potentially lifts student achievement for all students to new heights by building leaders that are not only successful at enacting the Effective Schools Correlates, but at practicing culturally competent leadership as well. Culturally Competent Leadership Practice [L]eadership practices by a multiculturally competent administrator are an essential component to bridging achievement gaps. (Grothaus & Crum, 2008) In order to affect change in the teaching and learning structure within schools to impact all students and eliminate the achievement gap, culturally responsive leadership is needed (Growe, Schmersahl, Perry, & Henry, 2002; Hines & Fields, 2004). In 1996, the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium developed Standards for School Leaders, a best practices guide for professional standards, to influence leadership practice and to strengthen the preparation of future school leaders. The standards identify components critical to successful leadership practice and specifically address the need for multicultural leadership competence to promote student learning: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth. The administrator has knowledge and understanding of: . . . diversity and its meaning for educational programs . . .
school cultures . . . (and) The administrator believes in, values, and is committed to . . . the benefits that diversity brings to the school. (p. 12) Thus, attention to the needs of all students is no longer a personal leadership choice, but rather, a professional standard for best practice. According to Klotz (2008), "[a] culturally competent school is generally defined as one that honors, respects, and values diversity in theory and in practice and where teaching and learning are made relevant and meaningful to students of various cultures" (p. 280). Principals leading schools must work to ensure this translates into practice to become effective culturally competent leaders. Practicing culturally competent leadership requires not only the celebration of diversity, but the infusion of diversity throughout school practices, curriculum, and faculty representation (Lewis, 2001). It is more than the mere acknowledgement of Black History month in February, it demands that all backgrounds be valued and acknowledged on a regular basis, 12 months out of the year. According to Sherman and Grogan (2003), culturally competent leaders do the following in school environments: establish cultural sensitivity training for teachers, implement mentoring programs for minority students, hire minority achievement coordinators, implement college preparatory programs for minorities, and train teachers in using data analysis to direct instruction. According to Sherman (in press), leaders most competent at meeting the needs of diverse students establish community meetings to gain stakeholder buy-in and to determine, through consensus, areas needing improvement, develop and foster district-university partnerships (i.e. dual enrollment courses, advanced placement courses), create and sustain parenting centers (staffed with school personnel and available after school hours during afternoons and evenings), 51
Using Effective Schools Research to Promote Culturally Competent Leadership Practice
Volume 7, Number 1
use disaggregated reports each nine weeks to develop achievement plans to meet the academic needs of each learner, work with the NAACP to hold forums and meetings to look at gaps and suspension rates, and coordinate faith-based partnerships with local churches. Riehl (2000) identified three classes of tasks culturally competent leaders undertake to promote and sustain a positive multicultural learning environment. Two of the three are directly linked to Effective Schools Research. The first is for leaders to construct new meanings about diversity, the second is for leaders to promote inclusive practices, and the third is to build connections between the school and community. Promoting inclusive practices, when enacted from a multicultural lens, requires the setting of high expectations for all students through culturally competent leadership. Additionally, building school and community connections is taken to the next level when viewed from an inclusive lens that requires leaders to make traditionally invisible groups visible and to seek out additional voices when creating policies that have historically been silenced. Successful schools utilize practices such as personalizing the school experience for students and establishing school-wide responsibility for student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1997) to promote student success. "Schools effective at reducing the achievement gap have created a learning community for all" (Maddahian, Fidler, & Hayes, 2006, p. 54) and according to Sherman and Crum (2007), the focus of all school activity should be to improve student achievement. Therefore, the role of the principal is most critical to ensure that students from varying cultural backgrounds are included. Principals must take the lead and set the tone for student achievement, despite other demands that are faced. So, while it is the responsibility of school environments as a whole to work toward success for all students, principals are the tone setters. Further, specific
Spring 2008
principal behaviors often facilitate and indirectly affect student learning (Carter, 2000; Hallinger & Heck, 1998). In a recent Journal for Effective Schools issue, Maddahian, Fidler, and Hayes (2006) recognized the importance of considering cultural context in the educational experiences of students. When culture "is taken into account (a) individuals are better recognized and are better able to make use of their talents, (b) schools teach and access children better, and (c) society utilizes rather than wastes the talents of its members" (p. 51). Culturally competent leaders should use these principles to strive to ensure that students are able to achieve the full range of talent and achievement potential, work with the staff to differentiate instruction to ensure that all the learning needs of students are being met, and that the unique talents of the students are recognized, encouraged, and fostered. One of the most important roles of a culturally competent leader is to help the staff and the school community foster new meanings about diversity (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006; Riehl, 2000). Principals may consider using The Miniature Earth1 project as an initial starting point for diversity conversations. This website shows what the demographics and other characteristics of the earth would be if it were broken down to 100 people. Principals can ask questions such as the following: ●
●
●
●
How does the school and community reflect that of the earth? How can the school infuse more culturally diverse activities into their daily practices to reflect the cultural diversity of the world as reflected in the project? What concerns do parents and staff have about the material presented on the website? What can we do to understand the world's demographics and the impact on our school? 52 Karen S. Crum and Whitney H. Sherman
Journal for Effective Schools â—?
How can we better prepare our students to meet the demands of a global society that is very diverse?
Another practical tool available for principals to use to help foster dialogue is the Tolerance.org website. Principals can explore the Teaching Tolerance magazine, available free of charge, about diversity issues in education. Study groups can be formed which explore key issues identified by the school or through this site in an in-depth manner, with the principal facilitating the process. On this site principals can use the Hidden Bias2 tool to help staff and parents explore hidden biases and learn how stereotypes negatively impact society. Principals may choose to refer the staff to this site or to use material on the page to target specific issues and foster conversations germane to the school and community. Principals can ask the staff and school to reflect on unspoken biases that may impede the school from success. These conversations can help leaders break down barriers within the schools' structures that serve as impediments to culturally diverse learning environments (Shields & Sayani, 2008; Klotz, 2008). While it is critical that leaders foster conversations about dialogue with the staff and community, it is just as essential that leaders participate in a process of selfreflection to critically analyze the current situation and that of the schools (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006). Throughout the process to develop a more inclusive school environment, administrators must continually model and promote inclusive practices (Gardiner & Enomoto; Riehl, 2000). Profound levels of change require a commitment to multifaceted approaches to multiculturalism, as well as actions ingrained in an awareness of social justice for all students. According to Leithwood, Seashore Lewis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004), leadership is second only to teaching in affecting student success. Thus, school change is, in many ways, dependent on
the initial efforts that leaders, such as superintendents and principals, make to set the tone for high achievement for all students. Most likely, this is not being done in schools that fail to ground themselves in the initial tenants of good practice in the first place such as the Correlates in Effective Schools Research. Discussion and Practical Implications Unless progress is made in closing the gap, Black and Hispanic students could be disproportionately harmed by requirements that link test scores to promotion or graduation . . . Closing the gap require more than setting standards, giving tests, and identifying which schools did not reach benchmarks. (Kober, 2001, p. 16) As student demographics become increasingly diverse, schools must take a critical look at which populations of students benefit from existing practices because data show that equitable educational outcomes are not often evident (Gordon, 2006; Erford, House, & Martin, 2007). While correlates that lead to success have been identified in the Effective Schools Research, these practices have not been successfully implemented in great scale. Because Effective Schools Research and identified Correlates have been proven as effective in schools that enact them, the authors found it helpful to examine what these Correlates imply for an increasingly diverse school population and how they might work to support current calls for culturally competent leadership. Thus, practical suggestions have been provided based upon the selected Effective Schools Correlates, Uncompromising Commitment to High Expectations and Enhanced Communication, combined with what is known about culturally competent leadership practices to encourage leadership which promotes an inclusive school environment that supports success for all students. Readers are encouraged to use these suggestions 53
Using Effective Schools Research to Promote Culturally Competent Leadership Practice
Volume 7, Number 1
as potential starting points to changing the focus in schools to inclusive environments that recognize the unique and diverse needs of all students. Since these are proffered as a start, it is recognized that this is just a small list of the numerous possibilities to consider when working toward more effective multicultural leadership practices. Practicing Administrators While this component is directed specifically at building level administrators, central office level leaders can use these suggestions for practice to develop initiatives at the district level. Additionally, just as the diversity within each of the schools is recognized and celebrated, it must be recognized that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. These recommendations are presented with the understanding and intent they will be modified to fit the unique and individual needs of each school. Leadership for Teaching and Learning. Building leaders are uniquely positioned to observe the individual teaching and learning practices within the building. Additionally, they have the ability to guide the instructional practices used. But, what differentiates those who are leaders in name and espoused belief only to those who are leaders in action is how knowledge is used to impact student success. Principals must take time to critically evaluate personal leadership practices for teaching and learning, and examine whether leadership actions support the Effective Schools Correlates and support the diverse learning needs of each student. According to Leithwood, et al. (2004), the building leader sets the direction of the organization, develops people, and redesigns the organization. In order to do this, the leader must model what is expected of the school community. Expectations are often a self-fulfilling prophecy. While principals may want the staff to hold an Uncompromising Commitment to High
Spring 2008
Expectations for All students and develop Enhanced Communications with parents, it is vital that the same be reflected in the leaders' daily practices. Therefore, it is crucial the building leader be reflective of this. The principal must be visible to the school community, be positive, and encouraging. Relationships need to be developed and fostered to promote a climate where all students are expected to do well and where those expectations are communicated throughout the school community. The building leader must also set the direction to continually align the curriculum and advocate for the inclusion of multicultural curriculum materials. Principals must also lead the building towards a more mainstreamed focus on including minorities who have contributed to society rather than one month out of the year only. Structural changes supporting effective practices must be realized in schools and districts to meet the diverse needs of students. The administrative team, guided by the principal, must ensure there is a diverse representation of the school stakeholders on the School Learning Plan (SLP). The SLP is a dynamic document used by a school to guide stakeholders toward the desired academic, behavioral, and social directions of the organization. (This is often commonly referred to as a school improvement plan.) According to AbbateVaughn (2006), "86 percent of those pursuing a career in teaching are White . . . Current research indicates that fewer than six percent of those graduating from education programs wish to work in under-served, multicultural urban settings" (pp. 2-3). The disproportionate number of White teachers compared to the student populations they serve is of particular concern because some believe that White individuals are less able to relate to minority students (Yeh & Aurora, 2003). Principals may consider employing the use of cultural sensitivity training as a technique to develop an environment supportive of multicultural education. Additionally, principals and school districts must make a concerted effort to 54 Karen S. Crum and Whitney H. Sherman
Journal for Effective Schools
actively recruit minority teacher candidates or grow their own through establishing Future Teacher of America Clubs at the middle and high school levels. The status quo will continue to repeat itself if actions are not taken to increase the number of teachers of color to become more aligned with student demographics. School Learning Plan. The administrative team, guided by the principal, must ensure there is a diverse representation of the school stakeholders on the SLP committee. Changes can not take place unless a broad constituency of stakeholders representative all of student groups are included in the change effort, including translating the process in an understandable manner and finding ways to make it meaningful (Riehl, 2000). The members should be selected with care and consideration. While individuals should have the opportunity to volunteer, school leaders should also actively search and recruit people who will bring a rich background to the discussions. Effective Schools Research has statistically shown the impact of parental involvement in students' education (Lee & Bowman, 2006; Jeynes, 2007). It is vital, then, that parents be an integral part of the SLP team. Schools are not stagnant institutions. Change, whether planned or not, occurs continuously. The SLP must be a living document that can be revisited and revised at any time. Data-driven leadership and schools that reflect upon the unique and diverse needs of students must have a fluid SLP that can be revised in order to meet the changing academic, behavioral, and social needs of the students. While it is necessary to set high expectations, those expectations must reflect the real needs and goals of the school. The language used in the SLP provides tangible directions for the users of the document and the SLP should reflect an air of optimism and high expectations. The message set forth in the SLP
will help direct the tone of the school. Therefore, it must be reflective of the goals of a culturally competent school vying for success with all students. School-Community Committee. A SchoolCommunity Committee (SCC) can be a powerful component of a successful inclusive school. This collaborative and active committee developed at the school level involves all stakeholders and looks at how the school can successfully utilize available resources, as well how to provide services back to the community. Parental involvement and communication have been identified as key correlates to a school's success. The SCC can be directly involved in garnering the support of parents, as well as identifying how to better communicate with the families of students and actively involve them in the school. Several of the strategies implemented in effective schools in the research look at how schools can be a part of the students' communities, rather than expecting the community to simply become a part of the school. This promotes a symbiotic relationship which further encourages parental inclusion in the schooling process. Meetings can be held in the communities to gain stakeholder buy-in and determine, through consensus, areas needing improvement. Another service to garner parental support and communication found in some of the research reviewed in this paper was the use of a parenting center. This resource should be made available to the families of students within the school. This center can be staffed by parents and be open after school hours during afternoons and evenings. The parenting center can offer tutoring services for families in, at a minimum, reading and mathematics. The SCC can solicit the specific needs of the families and provide courses and materials to the families in the center. The center can sponsor parent-teacher meetings and can 55
Using Effective Schools Research to Promote Culturally Competent Leadership Practice
Volume 7, Number 1
Spring 2008
coordinate these meetings to be held, at times, within the actual communities rather than at the school.
as P-12 administrators and teachers work together in a collaborative manner to ensure success for all students.
Higher Education Institutions
Collaborative University-District Partnerships. While university faculty may work together to develop a cohesive curriculum, any educational leadership program will fall short of meeting the needs of students without collaboration from local school districts As noted by Jackson and Kelley (2002), collaborative partnerships between universities and school districts are an integral component of successful leadership preparation programs. When preparing future teachers to work with a diverse array of students, the program must develop a course of study that addresses the demographics of the districts served and the needs identified by those divisions.
Recent literature has been highly critical of leadership preparation programs (Levine, 2005; Hess & Kelley, 2005). It has been argued these programs are out of touch with the current needs of the local school districts and are not adequately preparing future generations of highly qualified leaders. While the authors are not debating the merits of these arguments within the domain of this manuscript, suggestions are provided for higher education institutions that can strengthen their programs based upon the overall purpose of this article. Responding to criticism or not, programs must be in a continuous cycle of analysis, reflection, and revision in order to remain current with the needs of their varied constituents, including the leadership preparation students, districts, communities, and ultimately the P-12 students. Curriculum. Jackson and Kelley (2002) found that exceptional leadership programs had welldefined curriculum. Faculty must be able to readily articulate the integral components of the program of study, including how culturally competent leadership is integrated throughout the program, as well as the research on Effective Schools. Additionally, the faculty need to provide students with skills that will enable them to practically apply the Effective Schools Correlates as culturally competent leaders within the schools. This requires the faculty to work in a collaborative manner to develop syllabi, course activities, and identify the readings being using. This is not a move to stifle academic autonomy and freedom, but, instead, is reflective of expectations that full-time and adjunct faculty work together just
For example, courses can use authentic statistics from the localities to disaggregate data and develop intervention plans which incorporate Effective Schools Correlates. While developed within the scope of the classroom, the problembased learning projects can translate into real and meaningful solutions for the districts. The students may be able to identify new and inventive ways to enhance communication between the schools and parents that can be implemented in the district. Or, they may be able to identify practices that are counter-productive to setting high levels of expectations and can suggest solutions for staff to better set achievement goals with their students. Regardless, students are provided opportunities to explore real-life problems within the schools and to develop strategies to enhance the school environments. University-district collaboration can also take the form of K-16 partnerships to help promote college enrollment. This can begin to provide a K-16 learning environment and a seamless transition from K-12 to higher education. Dual 56 Karen S. Crum and Whitney H. Sherman
Journal for Effective Schools
enrollment programs and Advanced Placement courses can be offered to students for the specific purposes of supporting minority students, and particularly for those groups of students who traditionally drop out. Mentors (faculty and staff in K-12 and in higher education, as well as mentors from the community and business partners) can support students in these programs, check in with them to see what assistance they require on an on-going basis, and provide guidance as needed. Internships. Looking further at authentic opportunities that connect theory to practice for leadership students, particular attention should be directed toward internship opportunities available to students. "The internship experience is one of the most crucial elements of leadership preparation programs for bridging the gap between theory and practice" (Sherman & Crum, 2007, p. 5). Therefore, it must be ensured that programs, based on sound multicultural principles and Effective Schools Research, are enabling students the chance to integrate class based experiences into field-based practices. This can be done, in part, by coordinating the internship experiences so students work in a variety of settings and with diverse student populations. Activities that are planned for the internship can be specifically designed to address and implement the seven Correlates of Effective Schools. For example, a student may be required to identify areas where the school is failing to meet the communication needs of the parents and develop interventions that are tailored specifically at increasing school-home communication. These activities can be grounded in the research (including the studies reviewed in the previous sections). Students need to be consistently exposed to the literature base to ground internship practices in research-based effective practices. Internships should not be limited to the same academic setting and background of the intern.
For example, the common practice of allowing the intern to complete the required number of hours within her or his own school setting is incredibly limiting. The diversity needs, levels of expectations, and forms of communication used in this setting may be vastly different from the setting where the student may ultimately serve as an administrator, leaving the individual drastically under prepared as a leader. As integral to the setting is the use of wellqualified and trained mentor(s). District-level mentors work with the student/mentee and the university to ensure the experiences are meeting the requirements outlined by the leadership preparation program. The university should provide in-depth training on how to be a good mentor and appropriately guide the mentee throughout the myriad of field-based experiences. Mentors should be selected from a diverse school and ethnic background, as well. While only a few of the many possibilities to frame building-level practices and develop leadership preparation programs have been presented, it provides a starting point to foster more conversations about how to craft leadership practices that will promote success for all students. The suggestions require leaders to be more introspective and critical, as well as involve more individuals in the schooling process. Further, they demand that universities eliminate isolationist tendencies that keep school districts and faculty colleagues from working together in a collaborative manner. Conclusion The demographic make-up of U.S. public schools is rapidly changing (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006; Lim & A'Ole-Boune, 2005; Marbley, et al., 2007; Meyer & Rhoades, 2006; Reitmumetse & Madsen, 2005). Predictions indicate that by the year 2020, the majority of the 57
Using Effective Schools Research to Promote Culturally Competent Leadership Practice
Volume 7, Number 1
students in the public schools will be children of color (Gardiner & Enomoto; Marbley, et al.; Meyer & Rhoades). Unfortunately, though, historically low-performing groups continue to under perform, in spite of the heightened awareness of the diverse needs of the student population. Proven Correlates, such as Uncompromising Commitment to High Expectations for All and Enhanced Communication, in the Effective Schools Research have been demonstrated to increase student educational outcomes. It is imperative that culturally competent leaders use these Correlates in widespread practice to ensure high academic achievement and success for all students. Changes within the building that spread to the surrounding communities must be put into action. It is not enough to call on principals alone to spearhead changes. Just as critical is the need for higher education institutions to design cohesive leadership programs which take into account the many facets of culturally competent leadership, as well as sound effective practices to promote student learning. While recommendations have been provided for changes in practice at the K-12 and higher education levels, it is vital that more action be taken to critically evaluate the level of multicultural inclusiveness within the educational setting and make the necessary changes to ensure equitable education for all students. Further questions to explore in light of the call for a critical approach to multicultural leadership include the following: ●
●
Why do current leadership preparation curricula fail to adequately prepare leaders to work in a multicultural setting based on best practices found in the literature, such as the Effective Schools Research? How are future leaders being trained to work with staff and students whose cultural back grounds are dissimilar?
●
●
Spring 2008
What is preventing a more culturally diverse curriculum based upon best practices in the literature from being implemented in the K12 curriculum? Why are current teaching candidates nonreflective of the K-12 student body?
Student demographics continue to change the landscape of K-12 education and the call for culturally competent leadership is becoming a shout for critical multiculturalism. Successful school leadership in the 21st Century must be based upon what has been found to work in schools−−effective practices such as setting high expectations for all students, enhanced communication, and an awareness of and responsiveness to the diverse backgrounds and needs of all students. References Abbate-Vaughn, J. (2006). Multiculturalism in teacher education: What to assess, for how long, with what expected outcomes? Electronic Magazine of Multicultural Education, 8(2), 1-12. Retrieved September 3, 2007, from http://www.eastern.edu/ publications/emme/2006fall/abbatevaughn.pdf Bailey, D. F., Getch, Y. Q., & Chen-Hayes, S. F. (2007). Achievement advocacy for all students through transformative school counseling programs. In B. T. Erford (Ed.), Transforming the school counseling profession (2nd ed., pp. 98-120). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Bennett, C. I. (2007). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Brown, K. E., & Medway, F. J. (2007, May). School climate and teacher beliefs in a school effectively serving poor South Carolina (USA) African-American students: A case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 529-540. 58 Karen S. Crum and Whitney H. Sherman
Journal for Effective Schools
Carter, S. C. (2000). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty schools. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation. Condley, S. J. (2006). Resilience in children: A review of literature with implications for education. Urban Education, 41(3), 211-236. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: Creating a blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Day-Vines, N. L., & Day-Hairston, B. O. (2005). Culturally congruent strategies for addressing the behavioral needs of urban, African American male adolescents. Professional School Counseling, 8, 236-243. Duke, D. L. (2007). Keys to sustaining successful school turnarounds. Charlottesville, VA: Darden-Curry Partnerships for Leaders in Education. Erford, B. T., House, R. M., & Martin, P. J. (2007). Transforming the school counseling profession. In B. T. Erford (Ed.), Transforming the school counseling profession (2nd ed., pp. 1-12). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Gardiner, M. E., & Enomoto, E. K. (2006, November). Urban school principals and their role as multicultural leaders. Urban Education, 41(6), 560-584. Goddard, R. D., Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000, December). Academic emphasis of urban elementary schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: A multilevel analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 683-702. Gordon, E. W. (2006). Establishing a system of public education in which all children achieve at high levels and reach their full potential. In T. Smiley (Ed.), The covenant with Black America (pp. 23-45). Chicago, IL: Third World Press. Grothaus, T., & Crum, K. S. (2008). Effective leadership in a culturally diverse environment. Manuscript submitted for publication. Growe, R., Schmersahl, K., Perry, R., & Henry, R. (2002). A knowledge base for cultural
diversity in administrator training. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(3), 205-212. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-191. Henig, J. R., Hula, R. C., Orr, M., & Pedescleaux, D. S. (1999). The color of school reform: Race, politics, and the challenge of urban education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2005, Summer). The accidental principal: What doesn't get taught at ed schools? Education Next, 5(3). Available at: http://www.hoover.org/ publications/ednext/3219521.html Hess, G. A., Jr. (1999). Expectations, opportunity, capacity, and will: The four essential components of Chicago school reform. Educational Policy, 13, 494-517. Hines, P. L., & Fields, T. H. (2004) School counseling and academic achievement. In R. Perusse & G. E. Goodnough (Eds.), Leadership, advocacy, and direct service strategies for professional school counselors (pp. 3-33). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, A. W. (2006, Fall). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 425-446. Jackson, B. L., & Kelley, C. (2002, April). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 192-212. Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Jeynes, W. H. (2007, January). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82-110. Kaplan, L. S., & Owings, W. A. (2007, Fall). Making our schools effective. Journal for Effective Schools, 6(2), 5-13. 59
Using Effective Schools Research to Promote Culturally Competent Leadership Practice
Volume 7, Number 1
Kelley, C., Heneman H., III, & Milanowski, A. (2002, August). Teacher motivation and school-based performance awards. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(3), 372-401. Kim, J. J., & Crasco, L. M. (2006). Best policies and practices in urban educational reform: A summary of empirical analysis focusing on student achievement and equity. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 11(1), 19-37. Klotz, M. B. (2008). Culturally competent schools: Guidelines for secondary school principals. In J. H. Munro (Ed.), Roundtable viewpoints: Educational leadership (pp. 280286). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Kober, N. (2001). It takes more than testing: Closing the achievement gap. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 454358) Lee, J., & Bowen, N. K. (2006, Summer). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 193-218. Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Toronto, Ontario: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Levine, A. (2005). Education school leaders. Washington, DC: Education Schools Project. Available at http://www.edschools.org/ reports_leaders.htm Lewis, A. (2001). There is no "race" in the schoolyard: Color-blind ideology in an (almost) all-White school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 781-811. Lim, C., & A'Ole-Boune, H. (2005). Diversity competencies within early childhood teacher preparation: Innovative practices and future directions. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26, 225-238.
Spring 2008
Maddahian, E., Fidler, P., & Hayes, K. (2006). Effective school-teacher practices: Case studies of the achievement gap between African American and White students. Journal for Effective Schools, 5(1), 35-60. Marbley, A. F., Bonner, F. A., McKisick, S., Henfield, M. S., & Watts, L. M. (2007). Interfacing culture specific pedagogy with counseling: A proposed diversity training model for preparing preservice teachers for diverse learners. Multicultural Education, 14(3), 8-16. Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Meyer, C. F., & Rhoades, E. K. (2006). Multiculturalism: Beyond food, festival, folklore, and fashion. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(2), 82-87. O'Connor, E., & McCartney, K. (2007, June). Examining teacher-child relationships and achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 340-369. Reitumetse, O. M., & Madsen, J. A. (2005). 'Color-blind' and 'color-conscious' leadership: A case study of desegregated suburban schools in the USA. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8, 182-206. Riehl, C. J. (2000, Spring). The principal's role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55-81. Sherman, W. H. (2007, August 31). No child left behind: A legislative catalyst for superintendent action to eliminate test score gaps? Educational Policy, doi: 10.1177/ 0895904807307063, first published online, in cue for print, 2008. Sherman, W. H., & Crum, K. (2007). Student achievement, principal catalysts: 60 Karen S. Crum and Whitney H. Sherman
Journal for Effective Schools
Instructional leadership in reading. International Journal for Educational Reform, 16(4). Sherman, W. H., & Grogan, M. (2003). Superintendents' responses to the achievement gap: An ethical critique. International Journal for Leadership in Education, 6(3), 223-237. Shields, C. M., & Sayani, A. (2008). Leading in the midst of diversity: The challenge of our times. In F. W. English (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice (pp. 380-402). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Singham, M. (1998). The canary in the mine: The achievement gap between Black and White students. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(1), 8-15. Starratt, R. J. (1994). Building an ethical school: A practical response to the moral crisis in schools. Washington, DC: Falmer Press. Stewart, E. B. (2008, January). School structural characteristics, student effort, peer associations, and parental involvement: The influence of school- and individual-level factors on academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 40(2), 179-204. Viadero, D. (2000, March 22). Lags in minority achievement defy traditional expectations. Education Week, 19(28), 1-8. Waxman, H. C., & Huang, S. L. (1997). Classroom instruction and learning environment differences between effective and ineffective urban elementary schools for African-American students. Urban Education, 32, 7-44.
Yeh, C. J., & Aurora, A. K. (2003). Multicultural training and interdependent and independent self-construal as predictors of universal-diverse orientation among school counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81, 78-83. End Notes 1. This project can be accessed at http://www. miniature-earth.com/ 2. The Southern Poverty Law Center website at www.tolerance.org and the Hidden Biases tool can be accessed at http://www.tolerance.org/ hidden_bias/index.html Karen S. Crum is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling at Darden College of Education. Her areas of specialization are data disaggregation, leadership for teaching and learning, and leadership preparation. Whitney H. Sherman is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University. Her areas of specialization are women in leadership, leadership preparation and mentoring, and social justice and equity. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Karen S. Crum, Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling at Darden College of Education, Room 110, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, 23529. Email: kcrum@odu.edu
61 Using Effective Schools Research to Promote Culturally Competent Leadership Practice
Volume 7, Number 1
Spring 2008
Internships: Building Contextual Relevancy for Improved Instruction William G. Cunningham Old Dominion University Whitney H. Sherman Virginia Commonwealth University Abstract The internship, as part of the preparation of school leaders, provides an opportunity for principals and aspiring leaders to model and engage in behaviors that directly influence student achievement. These influences, many of which are supported in Effective Schools Research, include: instructional leadership; setting high expectations; establishing safe and orderly climates; providing opportunities to learn for all; enacting a strong curriculum; engaging in teaching and assessment procedures; communicating a school mission; and facilitating positive relationships between the school, home, and community. Importantly, these Correlates should not only be the espoused beliefs of future leaders, but should also be effectively enacted. The following essay makes a case for the importance of practical experiences woven through the internship during leadership development and calls for even greater authenticity and connection of theory to practice grounded in the tenants of Effective Schools Research.
Educational leadership internships are typically focused at the school level where opportunities to affect the most change abound when striving to improve schools. The early work of Lezotte (1988, 1994), Edmonds (1979), Brookover and Lezotte (1979) and others stressed the importance of the school building as the focal point for change and established the research-practice connections that, many of which, have resulted in increased student achievement. Those involved in the preparation of school leaders understand that the mission of principals must be to facilitate an effective school environment where all children learn. The internship provides an opportunity for principals and aspiring leaders to model and engage in behavior that directly influences student achievement (BlasĂŠ & BlasĂŠ, 2003). These influences, many of which are supported in Effective Schools Research, include: instructional leadership; setting high expectations; establishing safe and orderly
climates; providing opportunities to learn for all; enacting a strong curriculum; engaging in teaching and assessment procedures; communicating a school mission; and facilitating positive relationships between the school, home, and community. Importantly, these Correlates should not only be the espoused beliefs of future leaders, but should also be effectively implemented. The challenge of providing consistent and visionary direction to enable schools to achieve goals related to student learning is no easy feat, and, thus, the need for providing ongoing opportunities for professional development for practicing and aspiring leaders has been stressed. Yet, while the responsibilities attached to the principalship have expanded in the last decade, a common concern is that principal preparation programs have not kept pace and remain devoid of an authentic base, providing course work that is too theoretical and unrelated to the actual 62 William G. Cunningham & Whitney H. Sherman
Journal for Effective Schools
practice of administration. As a result, candidates for the principalship do not develop the practical knowledge necessary to enact important underlying leadership values, which has contributed to intense criticism of preparation programs. According to Levine (2005), Some observers have expressed serious reservations about whether these institutions are capable of re-engineering their leadership preparation programs to effectively educate aspiring principals and superintendents to lead high performing schools . . . . The typical course of study for the principalship has little to do with the job of being a principal. (p. 5)
educational leadership curricula with the purpose of providing content knowledge aimed toward the improvement of practice. Knowledge in and of itself does not lead to school improvement. A cyclical process where knowledge directs action and action directs knowledge is worth a great deal more. According to Cunningham (2007), successful internships have the following characteristics: ●
●
●
Critical leadership practices include setting direction, helping individual teachers, setting high expectations, fostering collaboration, providing evaluation and assessment, and providing leadership and support (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). These expectations require administrators to have a coherent and clear set of values, many of which are correlated to those identified through the Effective Schools Research. Future educational leaders must be well equipped to meet the ever increasing demands placed upon schools. The internship is one of the most important opportunities to develop and learn this diverse range of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. A hopeful trend for improvement in preparation has been the refinement of traditional internships. Field experiences should be viewed as the primary vehicle for learning, with coursework designed to support the learning that occurs in the field rather than vice versa (Cunningham, 2007; Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Daresh, 2004; Ehrich, Hansford, & Tennant, 2004). Hence, all classroom experiences should be embedded in or situated within the context of practice. Field experiences and problems of practice should be seamlessly integrated into
●
●
●
●
Require the intern to assume responsibility for authentic opportunities or tasks Require the intern to develop knowledge and skills that are applicable across diverse settings Include practice-based experiences that are aligned to cover the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards or the standards being used in the intern's program of study Connect theory and practice in a realistic and efficient way Are feasible and sustainable within all parties' work schedules Provide openness and access to whatever is needed to complete activities Ensure that activities prepare interns to assume administrative roles with competence and confidence
Interns need assistance to negotiate the nature of the first formal leadership experiences, the types of efforts required, the activities through which the greatest benefit can be gained, and the needed documentation and structured reflections that allow for growth and continuous development, ultimately resulting in improved leadership capacity (Cunningham, 2007). The most effective way to gain an understanding of the rigors of the position of the principal is to take on leadership responsibilities as an intern through planned opportunities negotiated by districts and universities. 63
Internships: Building Contextual Relevancy for Improved Instruction
Volume 7, Number 1
Promoting Instructional Leadership Traditionally, the focus of leadership preparation has been on school management and safety issues. While these are crucial to student success, these types of management tasks are no longer enough in an age of accountability. Instead, an emphasis must be placed on tasks that complement what has been learned from the Effective Schools movement including instructional leadership, school improvement, and student achievement−−historically overlooked aspects of university internships and preparation. Instructional leadership involves the strategic application of knowledge to solve context specific problems and to achieve the purposes of schooling through others. According to Cantano and Stronge (2006), The stress today is on instructional leadership and student performance. Principals are being asked to incorporate practices that are responsive to the most crucial needs of their schools with regard to raising student achievement−−the most essential instructional leadership task. (p. 227) Duttweiler (1988, 1990) completed a review of literature related to instructional leadership and student learning and developed a comprehensive view of what constitutes effective schools. According to Duttweiler, effective schools have the following characteristics: ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ●
Center on students Offer academically rich programs Provide instruction that promotes student learning Have a positive school climate Foster collegial interaction Provide extensive staff development Practice shared leadership Foster creative problem solving Involve parents and community
Spring 2008
Furthermore, increased student achievement is driven by asking tough questions, setting high and achievable academic goals, maintaining orderly learning environments, encouraging teachers' beliefs in students' abilities to achieve, modeling respect for hard work and academic achievement, setting a standard for friendliness and a commitment to all stakeholders, making supplies and instructional materials readily available, holding informal and formal conversations about school issues with stakeholders, recognizing and rewarding teacher efforts, creating opportunities for progressive professional growth, finding time to share information, supporting teachers' use of new skills, creating incentives for student learning, honoring students for accomplishments and good citizenship, acknowledging teacher professionalism, and creating professional learning communities. However, according to Sherman and Cunningham (2006), administrative interns report spending the majority of work time handling discipline and testing issues, indicating that university faculty and district mentors need to work together to broaden experiences for interns. While learning the daily tasks of an administrator is important, it is also vital, in an age that demands that the needs of all children be met, for leaders to be prepared in implementing change and leading transformation. The big picture is not often gained when the internship experience is focused only on daily issues of school management. Collaboration Between Universities and School Districts The emphasis on contextual relevance and instructional leadership is best achieved through well-designed internship experiences with collaboration between universities and school districts. Students recognize the importance of mentoring and often describe the need for more 64 William G. Cunningham & Whitney H. Sherman
Journal for Effective Schools
experience or on-the-job training. Current leadership demands require that learning be embedded within the context of practice to allow for the integration of knowledge and experience in real world settings. This places greater emphasis on making knowledge to practice connections and providing students opportunities to work on real world problems in authentic settings under the guidance of university faculty and experienced practitioners. Clinical activities led by practicing administrators and university coaches that are planned and arranged, prove to be meaningful learning opportunities and experiences that interns highly value and that lead to "a stronger pipeline of effective school administrators" (Pounder & Crow, 2005, p. 57). However, clinical activities led by practicing administrators alone are not often well coordinated with or integrated into university preparation programs. The internship requires the strengths of both academics and practitioners to mold opportunities for experiences that can be most effective for future leadership practice. According to Young (2007), in a UCEA conference opening address, Ultimately our success will depend upon the interconnected work of universities, practitioners, professional associations, and state policy makers. There is an important need to open the lines of communication and to eliminate the disconnects. (n.p.) Traditionally, district and university groups seldom meet with one another, and, if they do, it is only on an informal basis, usually for information sharing purposes. A more formal structure is needed if the key players ever hope to develop the reciprocal understanding and support critical to principal preparation. Representatives from both groups might meet on a regular basis and act as an advisory group for the internship process and to shape policy and practice
regarding preparation and seamless on-the-job training. Participating districts and universities must agree to negotiate the nature of the projects and a host of related practical issues such as: the length of the project; the cooperation of various entities including the faculty, union representatives, the principal, the district superintendent, the school board, and parents; ethical principles that might constrain the project; and ways of managing internship assignments or projects that will not unduly interfere with other school processes (Pounder & Crow, 2005). Other collaborative tasks identified by Pounder and Crow (2005), included the following: ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Identifying and recruiting candidates for leadership roles Providing input on educational leadership curriculum Involving both university faculty and practitioners in teaching and co-teaching Conducting formative and summative (culminating) evaluations Supporting paid internship programs for students Encouraging outstanding teachers with licensure to take on leadership roles Integrating district leadership academies and university programs (p. 58)
Mentoring There is wide support that those seeking growth in leadership will profit from the mentoring process (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Crow & Matthews, 1998; Daresh, 1992, 1995, 2003, 2004; Ehrich, 1995; Ehrich, Hansford, & Tennent, 2004; Fleming, 1991; Gardiner, Enomoto, & Grogan, 2000; Hubbard & Robinson, 1998; Kram, 1985; Luebkemann & Clemens, 1992; Matters, 1994; Mertz, 2004; Playko, 1995; Sherman, 2005; Southworth, 1995; Winn, 1993). The process is a form of socialization (Daresh, 2004; Browne-Ferrigno, 65
Internships: Building Contextual Relevancy for Improved Instruction
Volume 7, Number 1
2003) that exists under the belief that the practice will ultimately be beneficial to all parties involved. Browne-Ferrigno and Muth found that internship experiences and working with mentors "serve as effective professional development not only for aspiring and novice principals but also for veteran principals" (p. 471). The benefits extend not only to mentors and mentees, but to districts that engage in the practice. The end result is a more capable staff where learning communities are developed to establish a culture of continuous learning and greater productivity (Daresh). A well-designed internship program can ensure that most potential educational leaders have an effective mentoring experience through the careful matching of mentors and mentees. One of the primary causes of a failure of an effective internship experience is a lack of mutual agreement as to the perspectives, roles, and process of mentoring (Mertz, 2004). The mismatch between leadership styles of practicing and future administrators can also be problematic. Poor relationships create incompatibility and divergence from trust, rapport, communication, advocacy, and the overall quality of the leadership experience. However, despite concerns that surround mentoring, it is typically an overwhelmingly positive learning experience for mentors, mentees, and school districts alike (Hansford, Tennet, & Ehrich, 2003). The Hay Group's McClellan Center for Research and Innovation reported that effective mentoring and coaching is directly related to effective leadership and, specifically, one's leadership style (Spreier, Fontaine, & Malloy, 2006). Ineffective mentor leaders focus on the pressure to produce, heroic effort, production, and often personalize power, which is not conducive to long-term mentee development. In contrast, effective mentors are those leaders who are visionary, affiliate, participative, and believe
Spring 2008
strongly in the coaching and long-term development of mentees. Effective mentors focus on increasing the capability of the school organization as a whole by increasing the competence of the overall staff and by preparing the next generation of leaders. Building Leadership Competence
Confidence
and
One important benefit of the internship is that it allows interns to develop belief and confidence in personal capabilities as school leaders. Participants have reported that internship experiences gave them confidence as future leaders and that the opportunity to practice and engage in authentic leadership tasks helped to ease the transition from the classroom to leadership roles (Sherman & Cunningham, 2006). Interns need opportunities to apply what they have learned through coursework to real-world experiences in schools. It is through field-based experiences that future educational administrators can make the essential connections that must be forged between Effective Schools Research and professional practice. Those who have participated in internships are more likely to take state licensure exams, obtain state administrative and supervision certification (endorsement), and interview for positions in educational administration (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004). These students have consistently been more motivated to obtain administrative positions once they have completed their preparation programs because of having developed leadership competence through practice in the internship and leadership in practice. They have, in essence, learned to handle all types of situations, including those that are ambiguous and chaotic. As one student stated, "It's a good chance to get your hands dirty and learn what you're made of." In short, the internship gives the intern the confidence to walk into a leadership 66 William G. Cunningham & Whitney H. Sherman
Journal for Effective Schools
position feeling prepared, regardless of what challenges may lay ahead (Cunningham, 2007). New Directions for Improved Internships Responding to calls for change in leadership preparation requires attention to both program delivery and content. Internship experiences focus on contextual relevance and the art of application and help those involved in leadership preparation to bridge the gap between theory and practice. As the number of internship hours required for leadership certification increases nationwide, universities need to consider creative ways to meet these requirements. Equally important is the design of various types of forums to allow students to reflect upon experiences and to reappraise feelings, beliefs, practices, ideas, values, and how these might influence behavior. Research on Effective Schools and effective principals linking specific Correlates to student achievement offers insights that allow for the improvement of internship experiences that students receive, particularly in regard to instructional leadership (BlasĂŠ & BlasĂŠ, 1998; Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Hopkins, & Harris, 2006). Instructional leadership involves the strategic application of knowledge to solve context-specific problems and to achieve the purposes of schooling through others. Although the problems that face instructional leaders are numerous and the contexts in which instructional leaders operate diverse, the argument has been made (Krug, 1992a; Krug, 1992b) that instructional leadership can be understood in seven broad dimensions: organizational culture; academic emphasis; affiliation; resource support; learning incentives; communication; and professional development (Cunningham & Nunnery, 2007). The focus is on the identification of key instructional leadership variables that have been proven
to have positive links to student achievement. Educational internships should include these leadership activities that have been found to have a direct relationship with effective schools and student achievement including the following (Cunningham and Nunnery, 2007): 1. Organizational Culture __ Developing beliefs and values that guide the activities and members of the school; delineating the vision, mission, goals, and belief/guiding principles of the organization; developing a shared sense of purpose; creating shared responsibility for the purpose and school-wide goals; obtaining staff input; developing and communicating shared mission, values, goals, and decisions which are based on student achievement. 2. Academic Emphasis __ Focusing the school on student achievement; developing beliefs in the students' ability to achieve; supporting collaboration and focusing on instructional strategies and best practices as applied to instruction; ensuring non-instructional interruptions are limited or eliminated; monitoring student progress; providing appropriate instruction; ensuring decisions are made in the best academic interest of students; monitoring data; providing professional development; and ensuring teachers are knowledgeable and share curriculum, instructional strategy, and common assessments. 3. Affiliation __ Developing a sense of trust, support, and commitment among the instructional staff; taking the initiative to get to know staff and encourage staff to get to know one-another; supporting a sense of enthusiasm and commitment; setting a positive climate; developing staff commitment to their jobs; acknowledging accomplishments; actively listening to oneanother; and celebrating and rewarding teacher's efforts. 4. Resource Support __ Providing needed resources to improve staff's ability to meet goals (for example, curriculum guides, science materials, internet access and appropriate technology, 67
Internships: Building Contextual Relevancy for Improved Instruction
Volume 7, Number 1
content-based manipulatives, sufficient materials, textbooks, teacher's guides, pens, paper, and time); making resources readily available to support achievement of goals; and providing time for planning and instruction. 5. Learning Incentives __ Providing a systematic process for recognizing and rewarding the accomplishments of students; freely communicating student recognitions to staff, parents, and students; discussing student academic progress using the results of assessments; monitoring student progress; publicly awarding achievements; staying ahead of research; limiting interruptions of instructional time; encouraging teacher support of students; and promoting current curriculum, instruction, assessment, and best practices. 6. Communication __ Establishing a systematic, two-way communication process to ensure all staff share information needed to do their job; encouraging staff to share thoughts and ideas in a non-threatening environment; making frequent visits to classrooms to walk-thru and identify areas of strength and opportunities for improvement as it relates to instruction; being highly visible throughout the school and touching base with each staff member throughout the week (for example, classroom visits/ observations, open-door policy, clear communication process, easily accessible, provides teachers opportunities to communicate with each other); projecting a positive attitude; providing parents and community with communication process; maintaining high visibility; and discussing school issues. 7. Professional Development __ Promoting continuous, on-going, and job-embedded professional development for all staff (for example, lesson study, peer observations, examining student work, portfolios, national board certification process, self-assessment, goal setting, book study, performance observations, professional development committee, and mentoring); providing learning opportunities for staff based
Spring 2008
on identified needs; providing follow-up support; offering opportunities that are meaningful and directly relate to jobs/positions; providing opportunities to contribute to the choices of professional development that is offered; and participating in the professional development offerings along side of the staff. These types of activities can be used to measure the instructional leadership behaviors of interns and the ability to influence student achievement. They provide a profile of performance on various dimensions of instructional leadership related to student achievement and effective schools. Interns are not finished products; they are leaders under construction. Continuous improvement is what leadership is all about and, in turn, what the focus of the internship should be and why it is such an important part of educational leadership programs. While internships are a long standing part of preparation programs, there is much room for improvement. Enhancing the contextual relevancy of internships and focusing them more on instructional leadership and Effective Schools Research, providing tighter relationships between mentors and interns, and developing leadership confidence are crucial for internships that will promote transformation and change. Situated in the improvement/expansion of internships are key questions that should be considered for improvement: â—?
â—?
â—?
How will contextual relevancy, real world experience, and field work be a part of preparation programs? What will be done to include more instructional leadership activities (to improve student achievement) within the internship and preparation program? How will the interconnection among the colleges of education, school district practitioners, policymakers, and professional associations be improved? 68 William G. Cunningham & Whitney H. Sherman
Journal for Effective Schools ●
●
●
●
●
How will mentoring and coaching skills be developed so that mentors engage and support mentees in professional development and serve as catalysts for interns? What is needed to create the essential support network, rapport, communication, and advocacy among participants? How will conditions be created that are needed for interns to best extract meaning, knowledge, and skill from their activities? How will the interns' activities be planned and documented? What are the essential elements of an internship course that students will need to reflect and internalize, in order to articulate what they have learned and to insure this knowledge is meaningful? How will the intern re-affirm his/her code of ethics? How will you know student efforts were effective and appropriate based on authentic performance data and that they met the instructor's, mentor's, and district's expectations?
continuously develop themselves as well as others, so that they may best serve effective schools and students. Such passages or life transitions are challenges and opportunities of the highest order. As Owings and Kaplan (2003) concluded in a work on best practices, a ". . . principal's focus is on teaching, learning, and leadership. They use all three aspects to create environments that place quality teachers in each classroom and assure that all students have the opportunity to−− and do−−reach high achievement standards. Teaching and learning are the focus; leadership is the process to enhance both" (p 270). Conclusion
Internships are powerful learning tools for students and, as times have changed, preparation programs have been called to raise the level of practical experiences to be able to continue to provide the best opportunities for future educational leaders to develop, test, and improve skills. The internship allows interns and principals to work together to better promote academic success for all students by identifying if critical instructional support practices are present. The internship combined with Effective Schools Research helps define what instructional leadership should look like in practice and provide direction as to the degree to which the conditions exist. Internship activities can be used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the intern that are believed to be directly related to student achievement.
According to Effective Schools Research, principals and teachers are chief determiners of school success. More specifically, the principal is the single most important individual to the success of any given school (Edmonds, 1979; Lezotte, 1988; Miller, 1995). Davis, Johnson-Reid, Saunders, Williams, and Williams (2005) stated that the "principal's abilities are central to the task of building schools that promote powerful teaching and learning for all students" (p. 8). Administrators are the keepers of the conventional practice and wisdom of the time, wisdom being composed of the professional knowledge, norms, and values that transcend the work site and times during which an individual works (Smylie & Hart, 1999). This accumulated knowledge and skill base connects the organization to previously developed understandings and research (Coleman, 1990; Strober, 1990). This vast body of post-1970 research on Effective Schools and effective principals offers new insights that allow for the refinement of internship experiences. The focus of the refinement is to pull out those items found among the multitude of principal responsibilities that are directly related to student achievement.
This process might be called a right of passage in that future leaders learn who they are and how to
According to the Leadership Institute,
●
●
Stanford
Educational 69
Internships: Building Contextual Relevancy for Improved Instruction
Volume 7, Number 1
the role of principalship has swelled to include a staggering array of professional tasks and competencies. Principals are expected to be educational visionaries, instructional and curriculum leaders, assessment experts, disciplinarians, community builders, public relations and communications experts, budget analysts, facility managers, special programs administrators, as well as guardians of various legal, contractual, and policy mandates and initiatives. In addition, principals are expected to serve the often conflicting needs and interests of many stakeholders, including students, parents, teachers, district office officials, unions, and state and federal agencies. (Davis, DarlingHammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005, p. 15) However, despite all of the expectations above, the most pervasive challenges and issues facing educational administrators are related to the expanding expectations of the role as instructional leaders (DiPaulo & Tschannen-Moran, 2003). According to DeLeon (2006), the "role of instructional leader is only one of a dizzying array of roles the school principal is required to play in today's educational environment" (p. 8). While increased responsibilities have certainly complicated the nature of leadership for the principal, they have also placed a challenging responsibility on those involved in the preparation of future administrators. As more is learned about the internship experience in leadership preparation, one can begin to move past simple acculturation to building the capacity in future leaders for instructional improvement and use practical experiences as avenues for school transformation through the development of leaders capable of leading effective schools. Without a doubt, leadership is easier said than done. And, with practice through the internship, aspiring leaders are allowed the opportunity to take small steps toward assuming the roles and
Spring 2008
responsibilities that come with an increasingly complex and demanding profession. References Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (1998). Handbook of instructional leadership: How really good principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2003). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Brookover, W., & Lezotte, L. (1979). Changes in school characteristics in coincidence with changes in student achievement. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Browne-Ferrigano, T. (2003). Becoming a principal: Role conception, initial socialization, role-identity transformation, purposeful engagement. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 39(4), 468-503. Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role socialization, professional development, and capacity building. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 468-494. Cantano, N., & Stronge, J. (2006, September). What are principals expected to do? Congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 221-237. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Crow, G., & Matthews, L. J. (1998). Finding one's way: How mentoring can lead to dynamic leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Cunningham, W. (2007). A handbook for educational leadership interns: A right of passage. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Cunningham, W., & Nunnery, J. (2007). Developing an effective instructional 70 William G. Cunningham & Whitney H. Sherman
Journal for Effective Schools
climate for all students. Paper presented at the annual UCEA conference, Washington, DC. Daresh, J. C. (1992, December). Mentoring programs to support beginning school leaders. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Colorado Association of School Boards, Colorado Springs, CO. Daresh, J. C. (1995). Research base on mentoring for educational leaders: What do we know? Journal of Educational Administration, 33(5), 7-16. Daresh, J. (2003). Teachers mentoring teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Daresh, G. (2004). Mentoring school leaders: Professional promise or predictable problems? Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 495-517. Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005) School leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Davis, L., Johnson-Reid, M., Saunders, J., Williams, J., & Williams, T. (2005). Academic self-efficacy among African American youths: Implications for school social work practice. Children & Schools, 27, 5-14. DeLeon, A. (2006, Fall). The school leader crisis: Have school principals been left behind? Carnegie Reporter, 4(1), 1-9. DiPaulo, M. E., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (March, 2003). The principal at a crossroads: A study of the conditions and concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87(643), 43-56. Duttweiler, P. (1988). New insights from research on effective schools. Insights. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Duttweiler, P. (1990). A broader definition of effective schools: Implications from research and practice. In T. Sergiovanni & J. Moore (Eds.), Target 2000: A compact for excellence in Texas schools. Austin, TX:
Texas Association for Curriculum and Development. Edmonds R. (1979, January). A discussion of the literature and issues related to effective schooling. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED170394) Ehrich, L. C. (1995). Professional mentorship for women educators in government schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 33(2), 69-83. Ehrich, L., Hansford, B., & Tennent, L. (2004). Formal mentoring programs in education and other professions: A review of the literature. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 518-450. Fleming, K. A. (1991). Mentoring: Is it the key to opening doors for women in educational administration? Education Canada, 31(3), 27-33. Gardiner, M. E., Enomoto, E., & Grogan, M. (2000). Coloring outside the lines. Mentoring women into school leadership. New York, NY: SUNY. Hansford, B., Tennent, L., & Ehrich, L. (2003). Educational mentoring: Is it worth the effort? Educational Research and Perspective, 39, 42-75. Hubbard, S. S., & Robinson, J. P. (1998). Mentoring: A catalyst for advancement in administration. Journal of Career Development, 24(4), 289-299. Kram, K. (1985). Improving the mentoring process. Training and Development Journal, 39(4), 40-43. Krug, S. (1992a). Instructional leadership: A constructivist perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 430-443. Krug, S. (1992b). Instructional leadership, school instructional climate, and student learning outcomes (Project Report). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, National Center for School Leadership. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED359668) 71
Internships: Building Contextual Relevancy for Improved Instruction
Volume 7, Number 1
Luebkemann, H., & Clemens, J. (1992). Mentors for women entering administration: A program that works. NASSP Bulletin, 78(559), 42-45. Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., & Harris, A. (2006, March 30). Successful school leadership: What it is and how it influences student learning. London, UK: University of Nottingham, National College for School Leadership, Department of Education and Skills. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute of Studies in Education. Lezotte, L. (1994). The nexus of instructional leadership and effective schools. The School Administrator, 51(6), 20-23. Lezotte, L. (1988). Base school improvement on what we know about effective schools. American School Board Journal, 176(8), 18-20. Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. New York, NY: The Education School Project. Matters, P. N. (1994, January). Mentoring partnerships: Keys to leadership success for principals and managers. A paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, World Congress Centre, Melbourne, Australia. Mertz, N. T. (2004). What's a mentor, anyway? Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 541-560. Miller, T. (1995). Educational freedom for a democratic society: A critique of national standards, goals, and curriculum. Brandon, VT: Resource Center for Redesigning Education. Owings, W., & Kaplan, L. (2003). Best practices, best thinking, and emerging issues in school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Spring 2008
Playko, M. (1995). Mentoring for educational leaders: A practitioner's perspective. Journal of Educational Administration, 33(5), 84-92. Pounder, D., & Crow, G. (2005). Sustaining the pipeline of school administrators. Educational Leadership, 62(8), 56-60. Sherman, W. H. (2005). Preserving the status quo or renegotiating leadership: Women's experiences with a district-based aspiring leaders program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(5), 707-740. Sherman, W. H., & Cunningham, W. (2006). Improving administrative preparation and practice through well-designed internships. Paper presented at the annual UCEA conference, San Antonio, TX. Smylie, M., & Hart, A. (1999). School leadership for teacher learning and change: A human and social capital development perspective. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Handbook for research on educational administration (pp. 421-443). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Southworth, G. (1995). Reflection on mentoring for new school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration. 33(5), 17-28. Spreier, S., Fontaine, M., & Mallory, R. (2006, June). Leadership run amuck: The destructive potential of overachievers. Harvard Business Review, 84(6), 72-81. Strober, M. (1990). Human capital theory: Implications for H. R. managers. Industrial Relations, 29, 214-239. Winn, A. (1993). Critical factors in preparation and progression in the principalship: A descriptive study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando. Young, M. (2007). Politics and policy: Getting political in your state __ day on the hill and beyond. Unpublished remarks at pre-conference prior to annual UCEA Conference, Washington, DC. 72 William G. Cunningham & Whitney H. Sherman
Journal for Effective Schools
William G. Cunningham is a Professor and Eminent Scholar in the Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. His areas of specialization are educational leadership, educational internships, and educational context and planning. Whitney H. Sherman, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Her areas of specialization are women
in leadership; leadership preparation; and mentoring, social justice, and equity. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. William G. Cunningham, Professor and Eminent Scholar, Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia 235290157 Email: wcunning@odu.edu
73 Internships: Building Contextual Relevancy for Improved Instruction
Volume 7, Number 1
Spring 2008
Book Review Class Counts: Education, Inequality, and the Shrinking Middle Class Allan Ornstein Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007, 355 pages William A. Owings Old Dominion University Leslie S. Kaplan Education Writer
Allan Ornstein should be a familiar name to most school administrators since he is a prolific writer with several seminal textbooks on the market. His newest book, Class Counts, is in the author's own words, " . . . a 340-page ramble that my old handball, basketball, and baseball buddies might appreciate" (p. xi). Ornstein lists some of his old buddies from P.S. 42 who had no pedigree, legacy, or inherited wealth, power, or privilege. Some never achieved the American Dream; a few, however, went on to achieve solid middle class status. Ornstein points out that increasingly, one's social class may count more than their education level as people try to achieve the American Dream−−hence the title. Ornstein's thesis is that public education is no longer the engine of social and economic mobility. It is becoming more difficult to climb the ladder of success in our country. He cites the fact that in the last 15 years, real household income rose 2 percent for the bottom 90 percent of Americans, but rose 57 percent for the top 1 percent of wage earners. It soared 85 percent for the top 0.1 percent, and skyrocketed 112 percent for the top 0.01 percent! Given a similar economic outlook, Ornstein observes, most in his generation would be in much worse socioeconomic shape had they grown up and started their high school or college education today.
The author asserts that with increasing income disparities and inequality of educational opportunity, education is no longer society's "great equalizer." While America believes in social mobility−−that one generation or individual can and should rise above the previous generation's or family's attainment level−−facts show this is becoming more difficult. Only three percent of students attending the top 146 colleges and universities come from the bottom economic quartile, further exacerbating wealth and class gaps. Likewise, Ornstein cites statistics to show that income quintiles have "hardened," decreasing social mobility. Between 1979 and 2000 income gaps between the poor, middle class, and rich have increased. To put this into perspective, after-tax income for the richest one percent increased 201 percent. The middle quintile increased 15 percent while the bottom fifth increased only 9 percent. This income inequality, Ornstein notes, is eroding public schools' role in producing the educated meritocracy. Instead, America's postindustrial economy is in danger of developing an aristocracy of inherited wealth. Schools can no longer equalize the social and cultural advantages that exist between social classes. With globalization driving down Wal-Mart prices and U.S. middle-class wages, the majority of 74 William A. Owing & Leslie S. Kaplan
Journal for Effective Schools
Americans are falling further behind the mobility curve. To bring it home: "What is the value of an education and what is happening to the middle class when a teacher can barely afford a bungalow, and some captain of industry, entertainer, or sports figure lives a more luxurious life than the land barons of the aristocratic Old World that we had hoped to eliminate in the New World" (p. 188)? Ornstein begins Class Counts with a western civilization overview of social class, wealth, and inequality. His discussion extends from Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt to George W. Bush. Class distinctions, Ornstein argues, are not new. Our founding fathers debated this topic. They asked: Should the country be run by an aristocracy of the bright and wealthy or by the general masses that did not even understand the debate's abstractions? The founders finally agreed that America's hope rested with an educated populace. While the U.S. never lost its social class distinctions, America embraced the idea of equality under the law to pursue property, life, and liberty. The American Revolution gave the common man a new pride and power, new opportunities, and multiple chances to succeed. This provided a new respect for talent, hard work, and merit. Hence, ordinary Americans came to believe that everyone was the same as everyone else and everyone had equal opportunity to achieve the American dream. Class Counts shows how tax policies since the Reagan administration have benefited the wealthiest Americans to a much greater extent than the rest of the population. A plethora of statistics demonstrates how such policies have exacerbated wealth gaps, excluding many from the prosperity many see but can not attain. The author offers a final chapter on recommendations and solutions in Class Counts. Most
involve restructuring Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, healthcare, college tuition, and tax structures. For educators, he encourages using a more relevant, globalized curriculum and reminders to become informed voters (and vote for individuals who will accomplish necessary societal changes). What does this mean for educators? Ornstein argues that most educators believe in "equal opportunity" and see school as a process involving the acquisition of skills and the inculcation of better work habits in order to increase the individual's productivity. Since income is related to productivity, more education brings higher income. Education also serves as a screening device to sort individuals into different jobs. The more talented and highly-educated individuals will obtain better jobs. "The resulting stratification, based on merit or performance, is acceptable to most of us in a democratic society" (p. 175). The democratic system breaks down, however, when inherited wealth becomes entrenched and when the gap between the wealthy and unwealthy (with similar amounts of education) increasingly becomes lopsided. As "the relationship between education and income diminishes−− and class, rank, and privilege increasingly outweigh talent, ability, and performance" (p. 175), Ornstein implies that public schools become less an engine for meritocracy or social mobility. "Most of us who believe in the American dream are willing to accept elitism based on intellectual pursuits and merit, as opposed to elitism based on inherited wealth and privilege. However merit . . . is becoming a diminishing asset" (p. 172). By reducing the importance of merit, we invariably reduce mobility. If we reduce mobility based on merit, do we also reduce public schools' role as a means for talented but less affluent students to rise, economically and socially? Ornstein concludes that "It is doubtful if grossly underfunded 75
Book Review
Volume 7, Number 1
schools, managed by bureaucratic and sometimes cruel policies and staffed by many unprepared teachers, can make a dent" (p. 15). Ornstein continues, "Not only do schools have little measurable effect on students' test scores and future earnings, what accounts for the assumed relationship between education and occupation and income are a number of underlying variables related to education such as family structure, inherited intelligence, peer group, and socioeconomic class" (p. 173). Those who start at the lower income brackets have less social capital that those who start in the middle or higher income categories. Those with less social capital come to school with few cognitive skills, and the gap worsens as the students pass from grade to grade. Parents with more social capital move into high-performing school districts, provide private tutoring, and work the system through university alumni associations, professional networks, and social contacts to assist their children's careers, ensuring class advantages. While Ornstein's view may be politically incorrect, and be anathema to Effective Schools advocates, his array of supporting data will give any thoughtful educator pause. Class Counts is not a mainstream education theory text. It is, as Ornstein admits, somewhat of a rant. But the book deserves attention. In a world where leaders in effective schools are excessively focused on the fine scale achievement gaps between middle-class White and traditionally underserved minority and disabled students, perhaps it is wise to examine the larger frame. Do public schools still offer a meritocracy where talented and able students can work hard, learn, and gain the attitudes, knowledge, and skills for social and economic advancement? Or has culture changed so much that even middle-class students with a good education have little chance of making the social and economic gains available only a few generations ago?
Spring 2008
It has long been known that disenfranchised students have difficulty meeting school academic goals. Nevertheless, schools employing the Effective Schools Correlates allowed traditionally underserved students to successfully answer the question, "What's in it for me?" The problem Ornstein raised, however, is much larger. If Ornstein is correct, there is a movement towards an entire middle class of students becoming disenfranchised from education. If the middle class cannot use public schools to advance their education and opportunities, what hope is there for less affluent students? These questions deserve serious and thoughtful discussion. Education can be faulted for many failures. Effective schools, in our opinion, are generally proactive in meeting student learning needs. It might do us well to consider what Ornstein has to say about the country's increased hardening of class boundaries and shrinking middle class. Does the evidence suggest that the American dream of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is fading? If Ornstein is correct, not considering the larger realities that confront students' futures may leave us unable to help them. This would be a failure from which students cannot recover. If Ornstein is incorrect, Class Counts still gives educators a broader lens by which to understand the larger societal and global context in which everyone works and to consider the implications for personal and professional lives. Rooted in the philosophy of George Counts, Michael Harrington, and Christopher Jencks, Class Counts challenges educators in effective schools to consider if we are actually meeting children's instructional, intellectual, and attitudinal needs. Are students still being prepared to achieve the American Dream? What should be taught? How should it be taught? In a nation where less than half the population votes, how do 76 William A. Owing & Leslie S. Kaplan
Journal for Effective Schools
schools prepare students to meet their civic responsibility? Do teachers and students need to be helped to think meta-cognitively about what schooling means to their future and to the country's? If Ornstein is correct, it is again time for effective educators to be proactive. Class
Counts is a must read for any thinking, wellrounded, effective school leader. NOTE: More information about the book and other reviews can be found at classcounts.org
77 Book Review
Journal for Effective Schools
Spring 2008
Volume 7, Number 1
JES SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS General Articles and Research Manuscripts: Authors must send three printed copies (unstapled) along with a self-addressed, stamped 10” x 13” envelope with sufficient postage for two manuscripts to Susan Jenkins, Associate Editor, Journal for Effective Schools, 921 South 8th Avenue, Stop 8019, Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8019. Electronic submissions will not be accepted. Additional detailed information concerning the submission of manuscripts can be found on the Internet at http://icee.isu.edu. Manuscripts not following specifications listed on the Website will be returned to the author(s). The editors conduct a double-blind, peer-review process; therefore, authors must exclude their names, institutions, and clues to authors’ identities from within the text of the manuscript. Length, Typing, Style: Manuscripts must be typed or word-processed. The title should appear at the top of the first page. A manuscript, including all references, tables, and figures, should be 20-30 pages in length. Authors should keep tables and figures to a minimum and include them at the end of the text. All text, including titles, headings, references, quotations, figure captions, and tables, must be typed double-spaced with one-inch margins all around. All pages must be numbered. Any abbreviations and acronyms not well known to the average reader should be explained. For writing, editorial style, and references, authors must follow the guidelines in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (Fifth Edition). Abstract and Cover Page: All general and researched manuscripts must include an abstract. Abstracts describing the essence of the manuscript must be 100-150 words and be typed double-spaced on a separate page. On the cover page, authors must include their name(s), title, institution, mailing address, daytime phone number(s), fax number, e-mail address, and a brief (10 words or fewer) description(s) of area(s) of specialization. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION One year for institutions $110.00; two years $220.00; three years $330.00; single issue $75.00. One year for individuals $55.00; two years $105.00; three years $150.00; single issue $40.00. Canadian subscriptions add $10.00 per year. International subscriptions add $15.00 per year. Orders and inquiries should be addressed to: Journal for Effective Schools, Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness, College of Education, Idaho State University, 921 South 8th Avenue, Stop 8019, Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8019. Orders may be paid by personal check, purchase order, VISA or Mastercard. The Journal for Effective Schools is published online twice a year: once in the fall and once in the spring. ISSN 1542-104X COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSIONS Copyright © 2008 Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness. No part of this Journal may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electric or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. Authors are granted permission to reproduce their articles for personal use. Permission to copy must be obtained from the copyright owner. Please apply for permission to: Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness, College of Education, Idaho State University, 921 South 8th Avenue, Stop 8019, Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8019.
Spring 2008
Volume 7, Number 1
Published by the Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness College of Education Idaho State University 921 South 8th Avenue, Stop 8019 Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8019 p 208.282.3202
f 208.282.2244