Session Information
26 SES 14 B, Teacher Leadership and Leadership Teams
Paper Session
Contribution
Research Questions and Objectives
Today’s US accountability policies (e.g., No Child Left Behind Act, letter grade systems, administrator/teacher evaluation policies) have created conditions in which all principals must build school capacity for continuous school development. State and federal policies hold all schools (and their leaders) accountable, using a label system (A-F) based upon student outcomes. Schools that do not make adequate yearly progress over a series of years on state-administered standardized tests are labeled as turnaround status whereby the principal loses his/her job along with 50% of teachers. Moreover, most US states (45 out of 50) have adopted a national set of Common Core standards. At the same time, many schools are situated in communities with high percentages of culturally diverse students and/or students for whom English is a second language.
There is growing national research evidence successful principals work with teachers and others to build shared leadership capacity for effective curriculum and instructional work that ultimately improve student learning (e.g. Anderson, Leithwood & Seashore Louis, 2012; Spillane, 2000). Across this literature, however, there is little empirical research to indicate how principals build leadership capacity for school-wide development and change, particularly in underperforming settings. The purpose of this paper is to present results from a mixed methods study (survey and case study) of a U.S. school development project (AZiLDR) focused on building leadership capacity for curriculum work and school development in underperforming settings with changing demographics.
We asked three research questions:
1. How does the team leadership content knowledge combined with curriculum content knowledge contribute to curriculum team leadership knowledge and practice?
2. How do the leadership teams diffuse their knowledge of curriculum and instruction throughout their buildings?
3. How, if at all, do participating schools improve on state assessments?
Literature and Theoretical Framework
In school improvement literature, conceptions of leadership team capacity range from Meyer’s (2006) general notion of ‘readiness’ (a staff’s preparedness to deal with change) through Senge’s (1990) image of the ‘learning organization’. Mitchell and Sackney’s (2000) concept of capacity embraces both of these, grounded in an ecological perspective that recognizes all aspects of our world are interconnected. Capacity, or the collective competence of the school to bring about change, develops through the interplay among personal abilities, interpersonal relationships, and organizational structures (Newmann, King, & Young, 2000; Mitchell & Sackney, 2000). Growth in capacity occurs as personal, interpersonal, and organizational capacities increase; it is limited as they decrease.
Early studies of successful school leadership were conducted in the context of effective schools research on “outlier” U.S. schools that were providing children with quality education regardless of socioeconomic background (e.g. Levine & Lezotte, 1990; Purkey & Smith, 1983). Although these effective school studies did not specifically use the term ‘capacity’, across these studies, findings indicated that principals had personal capacity with regard to knowledge about curriculum and instruction. ‘Effective’ principals were instructional leaders, the pedagogical lighthouse for the school, as well as promoting safe and supportive environments. Subsequent international research (Day, 2009; Ylimaki & Jacobson, 2012); Leithwood and Harris’ (2010) study of turnaround schools in the UK and Canada) has added to this body of knowledge regarding turnaround school capacity, strengthening our understanding of what it takes to build high capacity schools. At the same time, none of this research has identified the specific processes that help teams develop leadership capacity for curriculum work in culturally diverse school contexts. Moreover, none of these studies investigate how to develop leadership capacity and schools prior to designation as turnaround status.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
References Anderson, S., Leithwood, K., & Seashore Louis, K. (2012). Data use: An exploration from the district to the school. Linking Leadership to student learning, 158-180. Day, C (2009). Building and sustaining successful principalship in England: The importance of trust. Journal of Educational Administration (47), 719–730. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading school turnaround: How successful leaders transform low-performing schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Levine, D., & Lezotte, L. (1990). Unusually effective schools: An analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development. Merriam, S. B. (2001). Case studies as qualitative research. In C. F. Conrad, J. G. Haworth, & L. R. Lattuca (Eds.), Qualitative research in higher education (pp. 191–200). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing. Meyer, C. B., & Stensaker, I. G. (2006). Developing capacity for change. Journal of Change Management, 6(2), 217-231. Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2000). Profound improvement: Building capacity for a learning community. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Newmann, King, & Young, 2000 Purkey, S., & Smith, M. (1993). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal (83), 427–452. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of learning organizations. New York, NY: Crown. Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and instruction, 18(2), 141-179. U.S. Census. (2009). U.S. census data: Race, ethnicity, and poverty. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov. Ylimaki, R. M., & Jacobson, S. L. (Eds.). (2011). US and cross-national policies, practices, and preparation: Implications for successful instructional leadership, organizational learning, and culturally responsive practices (Vol. 12). Springer Science & Business Media.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.