Administration International Studies in Educational

Administration International Studies in Educational Administration Journal of the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management

CCEAM Volume 46 Number 1 2018

International Studies in Educational Administration by the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management (CCEAM). Details of the CCEAM, its headquarters in Australia and its affiliated national societies throughout the Commonwealth are given at the end of this issue. Enquiries about subscriptions and submissions of papers should be addressed to Jenny Lewis FCCEAM, CEO of CCEAM at 86 Ellison Rd Springwood, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA; phone: +61 2 47 517974; fax: +61 2 47 517974; email: [email protected]; website: www.cceam.org.

Commonwealth Subscribers in Commonwealth countries receive a discount, and pay the Commonwealth rates as stated below. Payment should be made to the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management (CCEAM).

The rest of the world Subscribers in the rest of the world should send their orders and payment to the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management (CCEAM).

Account details for all payments are as follows Account name: Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management Bank: ANZ Branch: Springwood, 166–168 Macquarie Road, Springwood NSW 2777, Australia Bank/State/Branch BSB: 012-836 Account number: 279728989 Swift code: ANZBAU3M

Subscription rates for 2018 Institutions, Commonwealth

£150

Institutions, rest of world

£170

Individuals, Commonwealth

£30

Individuals, rest of world

£35

© CCEAM, 2018.

International Studies in Educational Administration Journal of the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management

Volume 46 ● Number 1 ● 2018

International Studies in Educational Administration (ISEA)

Dr A.A.M. Houtveen, Utrecht University, PO Box 80140, 3508 TC Utrecht, NETHERLANDS

An official publication of the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management (CCEAM)

Professor Lejf Moos, Danish University of Education, Copenhagen NV, DENMARK

EDITORS Associate Professor David Gurr Melbourne Graduate School of Education The University of Melbourne 3010 Melbourne, AUSTRALIA Associate Professor Lawrie Drysdale Melbourne Graduate School of Education The University of Melbourne 3010 Melbourne, AUSTRALIA ASSOCIATE EDITORS Professor Christopher Bezzina University of Malta, Msida MSDV 2080, MALTA Jeremy Kedian Leadership Innovations NZ LTD, 147 Wairakei Avenue, Papamoa Beach, 3118, NEW ZEALAND Professor Paul Miller Brunel University London, Uxbridge UB8 1AS, UNITED KINGDOM CCEAM OFFICIALS President: Ken Brien, EdD Associate Professor, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton NB, CANADA CEO: Jenny Lewis FCCEAM 86 Ellison Road, Springwood, NSW 2777, AUSTRALIA EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Dr A.O. Ayeni, Department of Educational Management, Faculty of Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, NIGERIA Professor Ray K. Auala, University of Namibia, PO Box 13301, 340 Mandume Ndemufayo Avenue, Windhoek, Pioneerspark, NAMIBIA Professor Christopher Bezzina, University of Malta, Msida, MSDV 2080, MALTA Professor Mark Brundrett, Liverpool John Moores University, Barkhill Road, Aigburth, Liverpool, L17 6BD, UK Professor Emeritus Brian Caldwell, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, AUSTRALIA Professor Emeritus Christopher Day, The University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK Professor Gang Ding, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, CHINA Professor Fenwick English, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA Professor Philip Hallinger, College of Public Health Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, THAILAND Professor Alma Harris, Director of the Institute for Educational Leadership, University of Malaya, MALAYSIA

Professor Petros Pashiardis, Open University of Cyprus, PO Box 24801, Lefkosia 1304, CYPRUS Professor Vivienne Roberts, The University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, PO Box 64, Bridgetown, BARBADOS Professor Sun Miantao, Research Institute of Educational Economics and Administration, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang, CHINA Professor Paula Short, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, University of Houston, Texas, 77204, USA Dr Clive Smith, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2092, SOUTH AFRICA Professor Duncan Waite, Texas State University – San Marcos, Texas, 78666, USA Professor Philip van der Westhuizen, Potchefstroom Campus, North West University, 2520, SOUTH AFRICA

ISSN 1324-1702 International Studies in Educational Administration (ISEA) aims to enhance the effectiveness of educational leadership, management and administration to support intellectual, personal and social learning in schools, colleges and universities and related educational, social and economic development in a range of national contexts. It publishes research- and scholarship-based papers within the broad field of educational leadership, management, and administration including its connections with educational/ social policy, and professional practice. It focuses on the Commonwealth and beyond. It is strongly international in that, while it may publish empirical research or scholarship undertaken in specific national or regional contexts, papers consider issues and themes of interest that transcend single national settings. Papers offer new facts or ideas to academics, policy-makers and practitioners in education in varied national contexts ranging from advanced economies to the least economically developed countries. The journal aims to provide a balance between papers that present theoretical, applied or comparative research, and between papers from different methodological contexts, different scales of analysis, and different access to research resources. Editorial Correspondence and Books for Review should be sent to the Editors. Business Correspondence should be sent to the President or the CEO. ISEA adopts review procedures common to highly regarded international academic journals. Each paper is reviewed by the editors to judge suitability for the journal, and if accepted then undergoes a double-blind review process involving two international reviewers.

International Studies in Educational Administration Volume 46, No. 1, 2018

Contents Editorial Note DAVID GURR AND LAWRIE DRYSDALE

1

Leadership for the Improvement of a High Poverty/High Minority School ELIZABETH T. MURAKAMI, W. SEAN KEARNEY, LAWRENCE SCOTT AND PRISCILLA ALFARO

2

The Leadership, Culture and Context Nexus: Lessons from the Leadership of Improving Schools DAVID GURR, LAWRIE DRYSDALE, FIONA LONGMUIR AND KIERAN MCCROHAN

22

Four Successive School Leaders’ Response to a High Needs Urban Elementary School Context NATHERN S. OKILWA AND BRUCE G. BARNETT

45

Leadership in Early Childhood Education: Implications for Parental Involvement and Student Success from New Zealand STEPHEN JACOBSON AND ROSS NOTMAN

86

School Leadership and STEM Enactment in a High Needs Secondary School in Belize NOEMI WAIGHT, LORENDA CHISOLM AND STEPHEN JACOBSON

102

How Principals Lead High Needs Schools in Mexico CELINA TORRES-ARCADIA, CÉSAR RODRÍGUEZ-URIBE AND GABRIELA MORA

123

Leading High Needs Schools: Findings from the International School Leadership Development Network DAVID GURR AND LAWRIE DRYSDALE

147

ISEA • Volume 46, Number 1, 2018

│1

Editorial Note This is a special issue with papers from the research of the high needs group of the International School Leadership Development Network. We have been part of this project since its inception and believe it is providing some valuable insights in both leadership of high needs schools and leadership for social justice. This is a very brief editorial as we provide a synthesis paper at the end of the issue that explains the project, describes the papers and provides our reflections on some key ideas arising from the special issue. Please read the papers first, as they are each unique and provide valuable insights, and then consider our commentary in the last paper. David Gurr The University of Melbourne Lawrie Drysdale The University of Melbourne

2|


Leadership for the Improvement of a High Poverty/High Minority School Elizabeth T. Murakami, W. Sean Kearney, Lawrence Scott and Priscilla Alfaro

Abstract: Despite national policy changes regarding the privatization of schools, improving schools from within will continue to be challenging not only in the United States, but around the world. The purpose of this study is to examine leadership for improvement in one high poverty/high minority school. High needs schools, located in challenging contexts, contribute to a global conversation about the improvement of schools in need of improvement. This study focuses on a three-pronged framework that includes leadership, context and the development of a culture of learning when examining the improvement of high poverty, high minority schools. Implications of this study relate to the sustainability of successful practices especially considering challenging contexts around the world. Keywords: Leadership, school improvement, high needs, high poverty, high minority

Introduction In 2010, President Obama’s Blueprint for Reform (US Department of Education 2010) asserted that turning around America’s lowest performing schools was key to the country’s long-term success. As Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan oversaw the distribution of billions of dollars in federal grants to fund states’ efforts to turn around their lowest performing schools. In 2017, President Trump appointed Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. In her first year, DeVos has seen a reduction in federal funds available to public schools through School Improvement Grants (Camera 2017) while promoting increased competition with charter schools. In USA Today she stated, ‘We cannot rely on throwing money at this problem like administrations past … Instead, we need to enact serious, substantive reforms that go to the source of the problem’ (DeVos 2017: para. 8). As DeVos’ approach is implemented it will be important for educational researchers to quantify the impact this policy shift has on public education, and especially schools in need of improvement in the United States. Despite national policy changes regarding the privatization of schools, improving schools from within will continue to be challenging not only in the United States, but around the world. Especially in high need areas (high poverty, high minority), the support for the


│3

academic success of students depends largely on the quality of teachers, leadership, and operations. This study examines one elementary school in Texas defined by the state as in need of improvement, asking, ‘In what ways does the leadership team plan strategies that can be effective in turning around a high needs school?’ This study is developed to contribute to a global conversation about the improvement of high needs schools through the implementation of practices that produce a positive culture of learning.

Significance In times when the privatization of schools may constrict the access and opportunity for quality education in high need areas in the U.S., support for low-performing schools and the observation of effective leadership initiatives become more pressing. Around the world, there is a similar concern related to the importance of examining school leaders who can be effective in improving schools. According to some researchers, there are universal leadership traits that have been shown to be effective regardless of students’ socio-economic conditions, gender, race/ethnicity or language. This research, developed at a time when scholars from different countries collaborated in an international project entitled International School Leadership Development Network (ISLDN), defined high needs schools as presenting characteristics such as: (a) a high percentage of individuals from families with incomes below the poverty line; (b) a high percentage of school teachers not teaching in the content area in which they were trained to teach; (c) a high teacher/leader turnover rate; (d) a high percentage of non-native language speakers; (e) a high percentage of historically/socially excluded groups; (f) a high percentage of indigenous groups; (g) a high percentage of students with learning differences; (h) a lack of access to basic physical infrastructures; and/or (i) a situational high need based on an event such as a natural or manmade disaster (Baran & Berry 2015). Scholars in this network, concerned with the low academic performance of high minority populations in high poverty areas, concluded that improving leadership in these schools is not limited to countries in development, but is becoming a universal concern (Barnett & Stevenson 2015; Gurr, Drysdale, Clarke & Wildy 2014; Medina, Martinez, Murakami, Rodriguez & Hernandez 2014; Murakami & Kearney 2016). To this end, cases related to school improvement can provide support for school leaders around the world facing high need contexts.

Review of Literature: Leadership Improvement in High Needs Schools Hassel, Hassel, Arkin, Kowal and Steiner (2010) call our attention to school improvement within schools that have demonstrated an established pattern of failure. According to Duke (2006), major components to improve a school include: assistance, collaboration, data-driven decision making, leadership, organisation structure, staff development, curriculum alignment, high expectations, parental involvement, and scheduling. Many times, principals will be placed in a

4|


school in need of improvement with insufficient time to create the educational infrastructure and community social capital to ensure the school’s transformation. Duke and Landahl (2011) suggest that real change requires at least three years, which gives the principal enough time to implement comprehensive, organisational change. At the forefront of improving a school is the campus principal, and her/his ability to build capacity in the teachers and self-efficacy in the students (Chenoweth & Theokas 2013). It is also important to note that first year principals of schools in need of improvement must be capable of understanding the needs of the campus and begin developing a culture of learning from the first day in their positions. Here, we examine school improvement from turnaround research.

Common U.S. Challenges in Schools Facing Improvement Measures When focusing on improving a low-performing school, scholars indicate that leadership effectiveness is related to complex and simultaneous measures that impact change. A diagnostic review of critical areas seems to allow for planning interventions. Here we identify common challenges for schools in need of improvement: Context High needs schools may be defined differently depending on the country. Most countries experience a more centralized educational system, where challenges may relate to different causes than in the United States—where each state can, to some extent, modify or adapt federal requirements. However, even with national control, high needs schools can be found. For example, in the country of Georgia, in Eastern Europe, the Ministry of Education and Science recognized that a lack of educational reform and provisions are outdated, both in curriculum and teacher qualifications, with leadership still carrying remnants of the soviet era, resulting in the poor performance of students (Sharvashidze & Bryant 2014). In Australia, the Victorian government identified 17 schools as part of an improvement project in the Broadmeadows area, one of the most disadvantaged communities in Australia—where the majority of families are in poverty, and a large number of students are English Language Learners (Gurr, Drysdale, Clarke & Wildy 2014). Extreme poverty and high dropout rates can be found in Costa Rica, where the local unemployment rate also influences the performance of students and stability of families (Slater, Potter, Torres & Briceno 2014). In Mexico, the largest population of students in high needs schools can be found among the indigenous, who are also migrant workers (Torres-Arcadia, Murakami, Esquivel-Mendivil & Martinez-Lopez 2017). Lack of Support One challenge in the U.S. decentralized educational system in which the responsibility for public education is left up to the 50 individual states is that some states have more resources than others. This leads to gross inequities in school resources. For example, Utah spends $6,555 per pupil, while New York spends $19,818 per pupil (Brown 2015). Expenditure


│5

differences, however, are not an indication of student success, even though the expectation continues to be that all students should be performing at their grade level (NCLB 2001). Distributions of funds within each state further contribute to discrepancies as many local districts have disparate levels of spending within their school district depending on the wealth of their local community. In fact, on average, high poverty districts spend 15.6 per cent less per student than wealthy districts (Semuels 2016). Moreover, additional monies to improve facilities are dependent on voting systems where the population agrees to increase taxes through school bonds. In high need areas, it is less likely that these bonds will pass when compared to wealthier districts. Adding to the challenge of a decentralized educational system is the lack of infrastructure to support struggling schools. Most centralized national school systems in developed countries have infrastructure in place to support teachers and school leaders. By comparison, such infrastructures are underdeveloped in the United States (Cohen, Peurach, Glazer, Gates & Goldin 2014). Schools and school systems that have traditionally operated in fragmented ways lack the infrastructure to support new norms and practices. Educator Attrition Exacerbating the problem created by a lack of funding and structural support is the problem of principal turnover. In Texas, where this study was developed, Fuller, Young and Shoho (2010) conducted a longitudinal study of all public school principals in the state in which they found that the average principal position becomes vacant once every 3.5 years. Miller (2013) similarly recognized that principal turnover is negatively associated with student achievement attributable partially to a decline in morale and commitment by teachers who see their leader depart. Sun and Leithwood (2017) similarly emphasized the important consideration of teacher emotions in affecting school improvement. Perhaps the greatest impact of principal attrition is that when principals leave to go to a less challenging school or district, teachers often leave as well (Beteille, Kalogrides & Loeb 2012; Handford & Leithwood 2013). Many teachers opt to leave failing schools generating high attrition. Part of this is by design, as many turnaround school initiatives in the U.S. require faculty be reconstituted, and teachers to re-apply for their positions at the same school or elsewhere. However, this does not fully explain teacher attrition at low performing schools. Forte (2014) found that the average teacher attrition rate for turnaround schools in Chicago faced a loss of 18 per cent of the faculty body per year, with the highest turnover found in schools with high poverty rates. Lack of Adequate Preparation Some scholars talk about leadership preparation programs as being disconnected from the realities faced by struggling schools (Darling-Hammond, Lapointe, Meyerson & Orr 2007), failing to prepare their graduates for the specific challenges of impacting school improvement. In many respects, the lack of adequate leadership preparation sets both

6|


principal and educators up for failure which helps explain why the attrition rate among principals and teachers is so high in low-performing schools. The lack of structural support, disparate resource allocation, the inadequate preparation for educators to work in turnaround schools, teacher attrition and principal attrition combine to form a death spiral that seems destined to doom low-performing schools to a perpetual state of failure. Fortunately, that is not always the case. In the next section we examine cases of successful turnaround schools. Common to all these studies is a focus on improvement based on the assessment of data and student progress towards academic achievement, the engagement and preparation of educators to apply strategies, and leadership to generate vision, that includes relationships with parents, the training and engagement of teachers, and a student centered environment. Understanding what has worked at successful turnaround schools may be a crucial first step for educational leaders seeking to achieve similar results, as well as a strong foundation to the further examination of schools in need of improvement.

School Improvement in Texas In the last 10 years, Texas increased its population by more than 20 per cent. The National Education Association (NEA 2017) also reported that Texas has the second largest population of school age children (after California), with 5,284,252 students in public schools, of which 2,630,744 are between early childhood and primary grades. To serve this population, the state has 1,207 public school districts, the largest number of operating public school districts when compared to all other states in the country. The NEA report also shows that the state ranked 9th in per capita state and local government capital spending for public K-12 schools in 2014, and was the largest employer of teachers in 2016, with a total of 347,351 teachers serving students in Texas. In relation to student performance, the state of Texas secured a conditional waiver from the U.S. Department of Education along with 33 states in 2013 in relation to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, which required that by 2014, 100 per cent of students would pass reading and math tests at their grade level. Without the waiver, many school districts in Texas would have been subject to sanctions and loss of federal funds to support schools with lowincome students. Waivers were renewed in subsequent years, while several measures to support districts and schools were placed. In 2016, 39 school districts were rated as ‘Improvement Required’ (IR). Five per cent of all campuses were rated as IR, with 231 primary schools presenting the same rating in 2016 (Texas Education Agency (TEA) 2016a). A Division of School Improvement (SI) is set in the state to implement the requirements of Texas Education Code (TEC), Chapter 39, Subchapter E, Accreditation Interventions and Sanctions (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.39.htm#39.102). The division uses data from the Performance Reporting Division of the Texas Education Agency (2016a) to identify campuses and districts with performance concerns for accountability monitoring


│7

intervention activities. Interventions exist when a district or campus receives a rating of Improvement Required (IR). When this occurs, an improvement plan is set in place with continuous monitoring, through the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS), an entity that will support schools continuously even after meeting standards for performance. Legislation defining campus turnaround plans in Texas can be found in House Bill (HB) 1842 (Texas Association of School Boards 2015), which reads: After a campus has been identified as unacceptable for two consecutive years, the campus must develop and submit to the agency a turnaround plan explaining the campus’ systemic approach to producing significant and sustainable gains in achievement and a Met Standard rating within two years. Campuses not meeting this standard in two years are subject to further sanctions, including campus closure or placement of a board of managers over the district. Texas Education Code §39.107 and the guidance and resources below will provide further details and support around turnaround planning requirements. (p. 22) Competitive grants are also in place to support school districts, through the Texas Title I Priority Schools (TTIPS) grant, funded by the NCLB section 1003(g) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Section 1003(g) School Improvement Grant appropriations (Texas Center for District and School Support n.d.). The grant was established to assist the lowest achieving schools in the state, following federal guidelines. The rules were released in December of 2009 and amended in 2010 (Texas Center for District and School Support n.d.). The Texas Education Agency is the administrative body distributing funds to schools identified as ‘persistently lowest-achieving’. The following critical success factors are observed under TTIPS: (a) improved academic performance; (b) increase in the use of quality data to drive instruction; (c) increased leadership effectiveness; (d) increased learning time; (e) increased family/community engagement; (f) improved school climate; and (g) increase in teacher quality. As a part of the Texas Title I Priority Schools (TTIPS) Grant Program Initiative, Title I schools receive discretionary monies to recruit, train and retain quality teachers, increasing the number of administrators; provide interventions and tutoring opportunities; and adopt a campus-wide incentivized behavioral modification program. The school observed in this study has been identified as unacceptable for more than 2 years, and has received at TTIPS grant. As we examine this school in Texas we examine interventions at one high needs school with implications at an international level in order to restore a culture of learning for schools in need of improvement.

Methodology This study used a single case study approach observing contemporary pressures related to leading school improvement in high need areas. Yin (2014) observes that case studies can inform research in the examination of educational administration issues in a number of fields,

8|


and contribute to develop knowledge about ‘individual, organizational, social, and political phenomena’ (p. 4). One elementary school was purposefully selected for its institutional history, and district–university partnership. The purpose of the school–district partnership was to bring best practices and supervision from experts into different areas of the school for support and improvement. This study was developed in the initial year of the partnership to identify areas in which university experts would be able to further plan interventions throughout the year. The data collection related to leadership was purposeful in order to diagnose leadership strategies that could be carried forward to the following academic year. Following, we describe the theoretical framework, site and participant selection, and procedures for analysis.

Theoretical Framework Leadership needed to improve high needs schools is critical in restoring a culture of learning (a sustainable environment for learning) that is conducive to the success of students (Barnett & Stevenson 2015; Bryant, Cheng & Nottman 2014; Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Easton & Luppescu 2010). The significance of leadership in improving schools is a concern addressed by scholars in the ISLDN and the focus of the high needs framework (Baran & Berry 2015). The framework considers three important areas in examining schools: learning, leadership, and context (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The International School Leadership Development Network Framework for the study of high needs schools

Leadership: In what ways can school leaders enhance individual and organizational performance?

Learning: In what ways can student learning be fostered?

(Adapted from Baran & Berry 2015)

High Needs School Leadership

Context: How are the internal and external contexts impacting individual and organizational performance?


│9

Site Selection PFS Elementary School was identified as a high needs school based on the following ISLDN characteristics: (a) a high percentage of individuals from families with incomes below the poverty line; (b) a high teacher/leader turnover rate; (c) a high percentage of non-native language speakers; (d) a high percentage of historically/socially excluded groups; and (e) a high percentage of students with learning differences. Fifty-four schools around the state are identified as being in IR status for four consecutive years (TEA 2016b). In 2016, PFS Elementary served 560 students PreK-5. Ninety-eight per cent of students were identified as economically disadvantaged and 79 per cent were identified as at risk of dropping out of school. Attendance was high among students, in the 95th percentile for two years in a row. Thirty-three per cent of students were identified as English Language Learners (TEA 2016a). The ethnic distribution of students showed 84 per cent of students as Hispanic, 11 per cent as African American, and 2.5 per cent as White. Among staff, the TEA report showed that 44 adults were on staff, with 35 teachers, two leadership positions, four professional support personnel, and three educational aides. The majority of teachers (66%) were Hispanic, followed by 17 per cent White, 11 per cent African American, and 6 per cent Asian teachers. Eight teachers were in their first year of teaching. Twelve teachers had 1-5 years of experiences, eight teachers had 6-10 years of experience, and seven had more than 11 years of experience. One hundred per cent of students were tested in the academic year 201516. Student performance in all subjects was as follows when compared to district and state (Table 1):

Table 1: PFS Elementary 2016 STAAR per cent at level II satisfactory standard or above

Subject

Campus %

District %

State %

(Grades 3, 4, 5 combined) Reading

38

57

73

Mathematics

45

60

76

Writing

25

51

69

Science

44

65

79

All grades total

40

59

75

Data Collection The school was analyzed based on public documents and participant interviews. Data were collected through on-site observations, interviews, and a variety of documents and assessments. Researchers used purposeful sampling in selecting individuals to interview, following Efron and Ravid’s (2013) suggestion that participants can be chosen based on the

10 |


fact that ‘they are the most affected by the issues of the investigation and we can study their actions, behaviors, and perceptions to get a comprehensive understanding of the issues being investigated’ (p. 61). Data from the state accountability reporting instrument entitled ‘2015-16 Texas Academic Performance Report’ (TEA 2016a) allowed a cursory overview of possible issues to be addressed. The principal was identified as a veteran principal (as defined as one serving greater than three years in a principal’s position). The principal was interviewed individually, and teachers were selected dependent on areas in which concerns were indicated by the principal and public data on the academic performance of students. The participants in this study included one principal, one school counselor, one social worker, a parent liaison, two parents and 14 teachers. In addition to interview data, relevant documents were collected such as school mission and vision, school development plans, school meeting minutes, school review reports, professional development documents, newsletters, examples of media coverage, and other reports demonstrating an emphasis on learning. These sources were used to contextualize the empirical data and enhance trustworthiness.

Data Analysis The analysis of data was used to identify areas strategic to improvement in the year 20152016. Each area required a review of national and state trends for a thorough understanding of challenges encountered in the school studied. The data are reported with a hierarchical analysis of interventions according to each identified area by reports and interviews. Triangulation was performed through peer-examination and member checks. Ethical considerations in the protection of participants and confidentiality were observed throughout the data collection and analysis processes.

Findings We begin by reporting on the school context, external and internal, impacting the organization and its members. The information related to school context positions the school within the larger state context, the city, and district structures conducive to improving learning. These include strategies addressing the socio-economic conditions of students and their families. Subsequent sections include components which the principal indicated as focus areas during the academic year 2016-17. These areas were analyzed in public state reports, followed by staff, parent, and teacher interviews. The sections following the school context include: (a) teacher retention; (b) curricula; (c) discipline; (d) attendance; (e) parental involvement; and (f) student success.

The School Context Texas serves over 450,000 students in PreK-12 schools, where 62 per cent are economically disadvantaged and more than 50 per cent are at risk of dropping out before completing high


│ 11

school (TEA 2016a). Many of the schools in the region are located in high need areas. Out of the 709 schools in the region where this school is located, 449 schools receive Title I schoolwide federal funds, and 20 receive targeted assistance (TEA 2016b). Educational structures conducive to learning relate to a need to create structures that can support schools whose needs are affected by challenging internal and external conditions. For example, internal conditions may relate to teacher turnover, student attendance, services and programs’ support. External conditions may include parental involvement, societal problems, and mobility issues. When it comes to the economy, this city is widely known for its strong blue collar and military presence. The city is also widely known for its accommodation and food service industries, followed by manufacturing, health and social care, and transportation and warehousing. In the particular neighborhood where the school is situated, the median household income is around $48,869, which is considerably lower than the state median household income of $55,653. Eighty-one per cent of residents are over 25 years of age, but only 24 per cent hold a Bachelor’s degree. Around 14 per cent of employees are in the construction industry, followed by retail trade at 12 per cent. The school is also a Texas Title I Priority Schools (TTIPS) grant recipient. The grant allows for additional administration/support staff, priority hiring opportunities, supplemental funds as requested for books for classrooms, additional professional learning opportunities, and after-school tutoring through the university partnership. These were in the planning stages at the time of this research. Additionally, discipline modification practices were incorporated in an effort to address the disproportionality in discipline practice with regards to males vs. females, or African American and Hispanics vs. their White counterparts.

Teacher Retention The principal indicated the importance of focusing on teacher retention, especially due to the high turnover of teachers, and teachers with as little as one day experience. Examining factors that lead to teacher retention is important because of the relationship between teacher attrition and student achievement. The dynamics of high poverty schools serves as a backdrop of the educational institution used in this study, whose student population is nearly 98 per cent economically disadvantaged and plagued by a revolving door of new teachers (TEA 2016a). Teacher R1 indicates reasons why retention is problematic at their school including lack of support, which limits teacher capacity and empowerment: ‘So I just think new teachers that have never taught before lack the administrative support so they end up quitting if that support is not given to them.’ The same teacher also stated, ‘I felt like they [administration] wanted me to change. They approached it in a condescending and rude way, because I had experience. I just felt dumb for having experience.’ This particular incident demonstrates threats to teacher retention because it devalues teachers and reduces communication.

12 |


In fairness, not all teachers held the same perceptions. Teacher R3 holds contrary views: Communication to administration, I feel for me is very open. Their door is always open so we can just go in, pop in if we have a question. [But admits,] I know on campus there is a mixed feeling of support. But from my personal opinion, I feel I am 100 per cent supported. If I need something I ask. While teacher opinions may differ within the same school, varying feelings could indicate differing exchanges with staff members. Support from colleagues through mentoring and professional interaction was important. Teacher R2 perceived Professional Learning Communities (PLC) as beneficial: ‘When we have the PLC sometimes the principal or another administrator or instructional specialist is there. So it is very helpful to get feedback from them.’ When educators feel valued, empowered, and knowledgeable and a sense of satisfaction exists, it is more likely they will make the decision to remain at their campus. Therefore, taking on a sense of ownership and increasing knowledge of the school, students, and community contribute to the overall success of all learners. Teacher PD1 talks about this matter during an interview: I feel like we’ve received a ton of math training and that has been a huge help for me personally because I had never taught math before. We have gotten practically almost no reading professional development and it’s really unfortunate because we are hurting badly in our reading level when it comes to our kids. I need more, send me to a class. Let me learn. Show me how to do it. While the research school did set aside time for all grade level teachers to meet during the school day, it was apparent from observations and teacher interviews that a type of ‘pseudo’ collaboration exists. Support for these findings was corroborated by Teacher PD2: ‘As far as coming together as a group, we’re really terrible about it. We’re not consistent ... even the administrators do not come sometimes, like they forget about us.’ The teacher went on to explain: Let’s say we finally get together, there is no structure to how we go through a meeting … we are kind of all over the place I feel. I feel like a lot of ideas get thrown out but we don’t settle or decide on one single concept whatever the subject may be. So when it comes to the end of the week we’re throwing lesson plans on paper and turning them in but it is more of a compliance thing because we are required to have a lesson plan turned in and not necessarily because people are following those plans. Providing professional development on the Professional Learning Communities model and modeling effective practices is imperative for overall student and teacher success. Developing a school-wide PLC protocol that includes norms, data analysis, state standards analysis and alignment, and examining past instruction using reflective practices will allow educators to fully develop successful teaching practices.


│ 13

Curricula: Fostering Student Learning The instructional specialist indicates that teachers begin their lessons by analyzing state standards to begin the alignment process: During planning, deconstructing Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) is very important. Not just looking at the nouns but looking at the verbs in the TEKS. It is very different than just being able to identify a particular skill. She also indicated there is a specific protocol teachers are expected to use when completing this task. Upon further interviews with teachers, it was discovered that teachers not only have difficulty with alignment but they also feel that the district benchmarks are not properly aligned as indicated by teacher PD 4: I notice that the district tests called Curriculum Based Assessments (CBAs) are not aligned to the pacing guide and sometimes they [students] are given questions that we have not gone over yet so most of the time they get them wrong. I think this is a disadvantage because we have not taught that yet, how are they supposed to know it? This lack of knowledge indicates a need for additional professional development in relation to curriculum alignment and monitoring of the alignment process during PLCs by leadership team members until teachers are thoroughly comfortable with the process. The number of novice teachers is vast at the research campus. This adds to increased obstacles in the understanding of aligning curriculum when teachers are in the process of still learning the curriculum. Providing opportunities for professional development along with structured protocols for aligning curriculum and support of colleagues in PLCs has the ability to increase effectiveness in alignment practices among educators. Identification of patterns where students have historically been less successful can lead to better sequencing of curriculum.

Discipline: School Leaders Fostering Learning and Performance The principal indicated the importance of controlling discipline in order to foster learning. The leadership team separated a group of seven students with high disciplinary behavior and removed them from the general education classroom. The principal asserted the importance of creating a safe environment with less distraction for these students to improve their learning. They were placed in an alternative setting with a long-term substitute. Further thought process behind this was to mitigate as many class disruptions as possible for teachers, while providing an environment with limited distractions for these students. Teacher D1 addressed curriculum: We give her [substitute] what we are doing in class but she has not been asking for materials anymore so I think she is doing her own thing. I think she realized that they have so many missing foundational pieces so she is just filling in those gaps. Teacher D1 also mentions a less overt practice of excluding students when speaking about a co-worker:

14 |


My colleague did not have much success with him either. He [teacher] was kind of in the mind set of, just keep him in the back of the room as long as he does not disturb anyone. Both of these practices have the power to further perpetuate discipline issues, greatly reduce student achievement, create educational inequities, and have a negative impact on student perceptions of school climate. The use of exclusionary practices in research conducted by Mitchell and Bradshaw (2013) was shown to have a negative impact on discipline, affirming that ‘exclusionary discipline strategies many only temporarily reduce problem behaviors, but do not fully alleviate the problematic behavior or prevent the onset of other behavior problems’ (p. 600). Nonetheless, there were practices related to a positive school climate with limited behavior problems with one teacher building positive relationships. Eliminating the use of exclusionary practices and developing positive relationships still are only part of the remedy. School-wide Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) systems were supported by the district. While staff members interviewed indicated there was a school-wide system in place to address behavior, there was little evidence that the model was followed with fidelity. The lack of fidelity in PBIS programs could relate to a need for training or retraining of teachers, enforcement from the leadership team, and procedures for behavior management.

Attendance: School Leaders Fostering Learning and Performance Attendance rates can vary widely between districts and schools within a district. It is crucial to examine factors that have the ability to increase and/or decrease attendance along with strategies and interventions to combat absence. Despite the fact that PFS Elementary has an attendance rate that exceeds the district average and is equivalent to the state average, there are still some challenges in ensuring students are present daily. The school’s counselor addressed factors related to student absence: The biggest issue is that students cannot get themselves to school. In our community, the parents are single and work 2-3 jobs and night shifts. Sometimes it is hard to get them up for school in the morning. A parent liaison is assigned to support parents in this elementary school. The school social worker pointed out there is indirect parent contact: ‘Our parent liaison also meets with every teacher monthly to check on families. We do tons of social worker referrals.’ While the parent liaison and counselor both conduct home visits, interviews point toward neither developing a plan for consistent communication nor supportive interventions for those students with the most chronic truancy rates. Furthermore, there was no suggestion that once referrals were made to the social worker there was subsequent follow up. Conversely, one school-related factor that is associated with absences is the perception of school climate. This is an area of varying perception among campus stakeholders. Teacher A1 refers to the school climate in an interview: ‘The morale is very low … and I'm not over-


│ 15

exaggerating at all.’ Teacher A2 supported this statement: ‘I think it’s very stressful to be honest. I mean with the teachers we do have a good relationship for a group, and I think there's just a lot of pressure.’ Whereas the two teachers feel the campus climate has some flaws, parent A1 feels there is a positive momentum shift: ‘There has been a lot of change for the school and I like this principal. There are more changes, more organization.’ The goal would be to continue to strengthen school climate on this campus by reaching out to families, providing consistent support and communication and increasing avenues for parent involvement. In a discussion with teacher A3, she revealed this was one of the principal’s focus areas: ‘The new administration is big on attendance’, with incentives for students and families, such as catered dinners, parties and activities. Yet, when gathering information through a parent survey almost a quarter (23.1%) of parents were unaware of any incentives for attendance. This lack of knowledge could shed some light in terms of the disconnect between families and school attendance efforts. Furthermore, researchers noticed that incentives for students were placed at the beginning of the week, most often on Mondays. When examining data on individual daily attendance rates, it was discovered the day of the week with the most student absences was not Monday, but instead Friday followed by Thursday.

Parental Involvement: Fostering Student Learning PFS Elementary designated a parent liaison whose primary focus is strengthening parental involvement on campus. During an interview, the parent liaison pointed out the role of positive relationships in increasing parent involvement: One of the things I worked on is really developing relationships because there were no relationships as far as parents when I came in … In doing that I had to share some of mine [experiences]; because people are not going to trust you until they know we are all on the same level. While the parent liaison focused on building trusting relationships, other avenues of including parents concentrated on hosting a variety of student centered events throughout the year. One aspect to take into consideration is structuring events to accommodate the schedules of working families. Parent 2 addressed this issue in an interview: The parent involvement is low. I come to events when I can. I have a first and fourth grader. I do what I can but I work a lot. I like the events the school has for us. An additional item of concern when conducting research was connecting with linguistically and culturally different families to increase a sense of belonging. In a school such as this, the English Language Learner (ELL) student population is almost 33 per cent, nearly double the state average (TEA 2016a). Through observations, it was evident that information to parents was not disseminated in Spanish, but only in English. While this may not be the sentiment of all parents and stakeholders on campus, the outlook is positive according to Parent 1: ‘If there is an issue, you can go to the principal and she will

16 |


listen to you and gather who else she needs to get to the bottom of it.’ Parental involvement may always be time consuming and riddled with obstacles. Nonetheless, opening lines of communication among all groups including those who are marginalized, incorporating student centered events and involving parents in shared decision making have the ability to mitigate hurdles and embrace hundreds of voiceless families.

Student Success: School Leaders Fostering Student Learning and Performance Students and families desire opportunities that allow them to feel like a part of the school community, affirming the notion of leadership as supporting and fostering student learning (Leithwood, Patten & Jantzi 2010). Additionally, the principal and counselor voiced that students need a culture that allows them to feel safe in a constructive school environment. One of the parents commented on the welcoming atmosphere when arriving on campus: The gentleman at the gate that directed me to the parking was amazing with customer service. The principal was outside greeting students and parents ... there was a door greeter at the front door welcoming all the students. When considering professional development related to instruction and cultural diversity, teacher SS1 was questioned about training related to cultural differences, sensitivity and culturally-relevant teaching. The teacher indicated there was no training provided in her three years of employment. The teacher also added that, ‘Bilingual teachers met for Professional Learning Community activities by grade level, for 90 minutes.’ With the large numbers of students who fall into varying subgroups including special education, race/ethnicity, and gender, this training could prove valuable for both campus leaders and educators. Evaluating the context in which English Language Learners (ELL) and Special Education students are serviced is an indispensable step for school leaders. On this campus there were 11 bilingual classrooms. They use a bilingual model absent of inclusive practices for ELL students. The campus receives students from surrounding elementary schools where bilingual classrooms are not available. This model can limit educational equity, deny equal access to a rich educational experience and diminish additional opportunities for students.

Discussion This study has limitations due to its regionality, since all respondents are from one school in one region, one state, in the United States. Irrefutably, many of the issues discussed in this study are present in schools around the world that suffer from socio-economic stratification and inequity. The principal included the significance of school leadership in this high needs school with reference to teacher retention, curricula, discipline as conducive to learning, attendance, parental involvement, and student success. The context was also very important in understanding this school’s challenges.


│ 17

When reviewing the critical success factors deemed important under the TTIPS grant, it seemed that the school would benefit from focusing on improving the use of quality data to drive instruction, increased family and community engagement, improving the school climate, and most importantly, improvement in teacher quality. Chenoweth and Theokas (2013) recognize that teachers are the driving force in a school. Callahan (2016) illustrates that when teachers are not given adequate professional development opportunities, they feel dejected, underappreciated, and unsupported by their leaders, and subsequently leave the profession. This transience is most pronounced in high poverty schools, which typically have teachers with inadvertent low achievement expectations, deficit perspectives and a lack of relationship with subpopulations such as students at-risk or individuals who have learning gaps, disabilities, or linguistic barriers (Vega, Moore & Miranda 2015). To mitigate this situation, the district has allocated funds for campus-level content area specialists to facilitate trainings and other professional development opportunities for faculty and staff. These specialists included a focus on Math, English, Social Studies, and Science, who would supply training in pacing guides, curriculum development, and instructional strategies. This training may help those teachers who are within the first three years of the profession (which at this campus is over 40 per cent) become acclimated and confident in their ability to effectively educate their students. This also paved the way for interventions in the form of after-school tutoring. With regard to curriculum alignment and professional development, especially to address the issues of subgroups like special education students and ethnic groups, teachers need to be intentional about adapting the lessons to meet the educational needs of the students. When dealing with discipline, there is no simple panacea that is generalizable for every campus or district. However, there are some non-negotiables that will yield better discipline outcomes. Of consideration are implications of the disproportionality of students missing quality instruction, when asked to leave the classroom, leading to further misbehavior when returned back to class because they feel lost. In addition to reduced student achievement on campuses with discipline problems, teachers cite disciplinary issues as a motivation for leaving the profession, especially for beginning teachers and those serving in predominantly minority schools. Neal, McCray, Webb-Johnson and Bridgest (2003) suggest that certain students of color are perceived to be less intelligent or insubordinate because of the way they walk, speak, or overall demeanor, and may be disproportionately disciplined. For example, African American boys and special education students in the district were perceived to be in a cycle of disproportionate discipline. They received in or out of school suspension more frequently and for longer periods of time. In an effort to mitigate district and campus-wide discipline issues, the school district began to pilot a Restorative Discipline program. In regard to attendance, principals need to be intentional about meeting the needs of the students. Some schools have opted to have a comprehensive attendance plan for those students who are traditionally truant. Having an allocation for an attendance liaison or

18 |


auditor integrates an accountability system for parents and students. With regard to parent involvement, the school may benefit by starting the year with a block walking program involving teachers, counselors, social workers, coaches, and other faculty and staff to help build a strong relationship and rapport with the parents and the community.

Conclusion Substantial surges in culturally diverse populations in many countries mean that school systems are becoming increasingly diversified. This translates into the necessity for campus leaders and teachers to ensure all students, regardless of culture, linguistic abilities, socioeconomic status, or disabilities are provided an equitable education and access to the same opportunities as their counterparts. The need to develop relationships was an important finding within this study. The principal plays a vital role in this process. In particular, the principal must generate a campus vision that advocates for campus improvement, including input and involvement of staff and families. These results are in agreement with other ISLDN research. The principal’s efforts in creating a culture of learning related to generating connections with the curriculum and making sure teachers were incrementally trained in best practices for the delivery of an aspired unified, vertically-aligned curricula. Most important was the examination of data, to identify and strategize interventions for high needs students that may not be receiving adequate or appropriate educational interventions. Many of the conclusions in the study were congruent with turnaround scholars’ findings around the globe. Effective leadership will continue to be a necessary component in turning around schools, especially in high needs contexts. The principal on this campus exercised leadership which could be seen as promoting incremental change with regard to discipline, attendance, training, and curriculum implementation. These improvements take time, and require multiple and simultaneous strategies. Threats to this campus’ success include teacher turnover, principal turnover, a lack of time for incremental change, and a lack of connectivity with community stakeholders. It is the authors’ intent to conduct follow up studies reporting on the interventions implemented on this campus and their effectiveness over time.

__________________ The authors would like to recognize the important contribution in the data collection from the following dedicated educators: Nicole Garza, Nadia Gomez, Gary Hiett, Arely Palacios, Robert Rivas, Monika Robinson, Giehye Thielemann, Monica Vasquez, David Velasquez, Julie Velez, Silvia Juarez-Trujillo, Jason Padron, Sara Leos-Tamayo, Pamela Salazar, Kevin Vanlanham, Wanda De Leon, Krystle Halbadier, Michelle Muniz, Jamie Kowatch, Cynthia Painter, Edward Martinez, and Margaret Asebedo.


│ 19

References Baran, M. L., & Berry, J. R. (2015). The International School Leadership Development Network’s (ISLDN) High Needs Schools Group Research Protocol and Members’ Guide. British Educational Leadership, Management, and Administration and the University Council for Educational Administration. Barnett, B., & Stevenson, H. (2015). International Perspectives in Urban Educational Leadership: Social justice leadership and high-need schools. In M. A. Khalifa, C. Grant-Overton & N. W. Arnold (Eds.), Handbook of Urban School Leadership (pp. 518-531). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Béteille, T., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2012). Stepping stones: Principal career paths and school outcomes. Social Science Research, 41(4), 904-919. Brown, E. (2015, June 2). The states that spend the most (and the least) on education, in one map. The Washington Post (retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-statesthat-spend-the-most-and-the-least-on-education-in-one-map/?utm_term=.d7e22531a1d5). Bryant, M., Cheng, A., & Notman R. (Eds.). Exploring high need and social justice leadership in schools around the globe. Management in Education, 28(3), 78-79. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Callahan, J. J. (2016). Encouraging retention of new teachers through mentoring strategies. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 83(1), 6-11. Camera, L. (2017, March 10). The great school turnaround. US News and World Report (retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-03-10/can-donald-trump-and-betsy-devos-fix-fa iling-schools). Chenoweth, K. K., & Theokas, C. C. (2013). How high-poverty schools are getting it done. Educational Leadership, 70(7), 56-59. Cohen, D. K., Peurach, D. J., Glazer, J. L., Gates, K. E., & Goldin, S. (2014). Improvement by Design: The promise of better schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Darling-Hammond, L., Lapointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. T. (2007). Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Stanford, CA: SCOPE. DeVos, B. (2017, March 2). Betsy DeVos: President Trump delivers on education promises. USA Today, (retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/03/02/betsy-devos-trump-delivers-edu cation-promises-column/98594982/). Duke, D. L. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 729-734. Duke, D. L., & Landahl, M. (2011). Raising test scores was the easy part: A case study of the third year of school turnaround. International Studies in Educational Administration, 39(3), 91-114. Efron, S. E., & Ravid, R. (2013). Action Research in Education: A practical guide. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Forte, L. (2014). Slowing the revolving door. Catalyst in Depth, 25(3), 2. Fuller, E., Young, M., & Shoho, A. (2010). Assistant Principal and Principal Attrition. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO. Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., Clarke, S., & Wildy, H. (2014). High need schools in Australia: The leadership of two principals. Management in Education, 28(3), 86-90. Handford, V., & Leithwood, K. (2013). Why teachers trust school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 194-212.

20 |


Hassel, E. A., Hassel, B. C., Arkin, M. D., Kowal, J. K., & Steiner, L. M. (2010). School Restructuring: What works when? A guide for education leaders. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671-706. Medina, V., Martinez, G., Murakami, E., Rodriguez, M., & Hernandez, F. (2014). Principals’ perceptions from within: Leadership in high-need schools in the United States. Management in Education, 28(3), 91-96. Miller, A. (2013). Principal turnover and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 36, 60-72. Mitchell, M. M., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Examining classroom influences on student perceptions of school climate: The role of classroom management and exclusionary discipline strategies. Journal of Psychology, 51(5), 599-610. Murakami, E., & Kearney, W.S. (2016). Developing Successful and Effective School Leadership in North America: The sustainable preparation of principals. In P. Pashiardis & O. Johansson (Eds.), Successful School Leadership: International perspectives (Chapter 5, pp. 53-66). London, UK: Bloomsbury. National Education Association. (2017). Rankings and Estimates: Rankings of the States 2016 and Estimates of School Statistics 2017 (retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/2017_Rankings_ and_Estimates_Report-FINAL-SECURED.pdf). Neal, L. I., McCray, A. D., Webb-Johnson, G., & Bridgest, S. T. (2003). The effects of African American movement styles on teachers’ perceptions and reactions. Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 49. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319. (2002). Semuels, A. (2016, August 25). Good school, rich school; bad school, poor school. The Atlantic (retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-schools/49733 3). Slater, C., Potter, I., Torres, N., & Briceno, F. (2014). Understanding social justice leadership: An international exploration of the perspectives of two school leaders in Costa Rica and England. Management in Education, 28(3), 110-115. Sharvashidze, N., & Bryant, M. (2014). A high-need Azeri school: A Georgian perspective. Management in Education, 28(3), 97-100. Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2017). Calculating the power of alternative choices by school leaders for improving student achievement. School Leadership & Management, 37(2), 80-93. Texas Association of School Boards. (2015). House Bill H.B. No. 1842 (retrieved from https://www. tasb.org/Services/Legal-Services/TASB-School-Law-eSource/Governance/Districts-of-Innovation/docum ents/HB01842F-(1).aspx). Texas Center for District and School Support. (n.d.). Texas Title I Priority Schools (retrieved from http://www.tcdss.net/home/ttips). Texas Education Agency. (2016a). Texas Academic Performance Report (retrieved from https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/cgi/sas/broker?_service=marykay&year4=2015&year2=15&_debug=0&singl e=N&title=2016+Texas+Academic+Performance+Reports&_program=perfrept.perfmast.sas&prgopt=201 6percent2Ftaprpercent2Ftapr_spec.sas&ptype=P&level=campus&search=campname&namenum=stewar t&campus=015907168). Texas Education Agency. (2016b). Final 2016 Academic Accountability Ratings Released. TEA News Releases Online (retrieved from http://tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/News_and_Multimedia/Press_ Releases/2016/Final_2016_academic_accountability_ratings_released/).


│ 21

Torres-Arcadia, C. C., Murakami, E., Esquivel-Mendívil, R. M., & Martínez-López, M. (2017). Programa Niño Migrante: Successful Practices for the Education of Migrant Children in Mexico. Presentation at the national convention of the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Puerto Vallarta, May 2017. United States Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2010). ESEA Blueprint for Reform. Washington, DC (retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/ blueprint/blueprint.pdf). Vega, D., Moore, J. L., III, & Miranda, A. H. (2015). In their own words: Perceived barriers to achievement by African American and Latino high school students. American Secondary Education, 43(3), 36-59. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Author Details Elizabeth Murakami University of North Texas Email: [email protected] W. Sean Kearney Texas A&M University – San Antonio Email: [email protected] Lawrence Scott Texas A&M University – San Antonio Email: [email protected] Priscilla Alfaro Judson Independent School District Email: [email protected]

22 |


The Leadership, Culture and Context Nexus: Lessons from the Leadership of Improving Schools David Gurr, Lawrie Drysdale, Fiona Longmuir and Kieran McCrohan

Abstract: This paper reports on multiple perspective and observational case studies of the leadership of three underperforming schools, two serving communities with relatively high educational advantage, and one with low educational advantage, yet all facing challenges related to school closure and pressure to succeed. Utilising Hallinger’s (2016) context and culture framework for school improvement to analyse the cases, it is shown that whilst these schools had very challenging contexts, they have been able to meet the needs of their local community cultures through leadership from the principal and others that has not been constrained by context. Keywords: School leadership, principal, school improvement, context and culture

Introduction Context can be considered to encompass many layers, from the local/school level, through system and national contexts. In the research of the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP – www.uv.uio.no/ils/english/research/projects/isspp), school leaders described how context was often more a melting pot of these many layers, rather than having a focus on one level (Gurr 2014). Culture can refer to both the broader societal culture (at national and more local levels), and school culture. According to Petersen and Deal (2009) core elements of school culture include: a shared sense of purpose and vision; norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions; rituals, traditions, and ceremonies; history and stories; people and relationships; and, architecture, artefacts, and symbols. Culture defined in this way overlaps considerably with context and the leadership characteristics and practices of school leaders. One way to link context, culture and leadership is through Hallinger’s (2016) articulation of a model of leadership that utilises instructional leadership ideas but which accounts for the influence of multiple contexts, with many of these aspects of school culture. The model conceptualises school leadership that is focused on improving student learning through


│ 23

influencing school climate and the teaching and learning programme. Three contexts have a general influence on the school (economic, political and socio-cultural), three contexts have direct influence on school leadership (community, personal and institutional), and school leadership is viewed as directly influencing instructional organisational and school climate, with these last two aspects influencing student learning. In this paper, the six contextual dimensions will be used to consider the work of three principals leading schools that have been underperforming but which are on an improvement trajectory. The contexts are now described before the cases are considered.

Institutional Context This encompasses the location of a school within a system or systems of education (local area network, regions, districts, state, national, religious and so forth) and how these systems influence practice through aspects such as decentralisation, school autonomy, policy mandates, and work/role expectations. The size of systems, the support systems available, and types of schools provided, all fall within the consideration of this contextual element.

Community Context This considers the school within the community it serves, and so aspects such as challenge (resource deprivation, safety, security, success), community educational advantage, socioeconomic status, location (e.g., city, urban, suburban, rural, remote), and degree of conflict in the community become important influences on leadership enactment.

Socio-Cultural Context In this view, leadership is considered to be value-driven and leaders adapt their leadership styles to the prevailing societal values and norms. It is focused on the macro-level contextual influences on schools. For example, Raihani (2007, 2008) found that principals in secular schools in Indonesia nevertheless exhibited core Islamic values.

Economic Context This is concerned with the economic development of the broader society. Like the sociocultural context it is a macro-level feature to consider and has been shown to impact on features such as time at work, with principals in higher GDP countries tending to work longer hours than lower GDP countries (Lee & Hallinger 2012).

Political Context This view does not subscribe to the notion that education is an apolitical public service, but rather considers the extent to which the prevailing political context shapes the beliefs, attitudes and practices of school leaders. For example, national goals of schooling are a

24 |


political statement of what is valued and privileged, as is the allocation of financial support from government for the various types of schools.

School Improvement Context Hallinger (2016) also introduces a new contextual factor that is not demonstrated in the model but noteworthy. This is related to the historical context of a school and the school’s improvement trajectory. It is a contingency-oriented approach to school improvement leadership. Utilising a four-frame notion to describe a school’s improvement state (effective, improving, coasting and ineffective), it suggests that leadership style and impact are contingent upon the school’s state. This journal article is a companion piece to a book chapter (Gurr, Drysdale, Longmuir & McCrohan 2018). The book chapter has a more extensive literature section, but less engagement with the case study findings.

The Research There is considerable overlap between the ISSPP and the International School Leadership Development Network (ISLDN – isldn.weebly.com) especially with the more recent focus on underperforming schools in the ISSPP, and the development of the high needs strand of the ISLDN. For this paper we are drawing on recent research we have conducted that fits within this overlap, and we consider three cases of underperforming schools. Two of the schools are in educationally advantaged contexts and one is in an educationally disadvantaged context. All three schools have been created from the remnants of other schools. One school resulted from the amalgamation of three failing schools, another from the resurrection of a closed school in an inner-city community, and the final from the re-birth of a school that was heading for closure as the community had lost trust with the school. All schools have been underperforming, but all were on an improvement journey when the research was conducted. The research involved multiple perspective observational case studies. In each school, the principal, senior and middle level leaders, teachers, parents, students and school council members were interviewed individually or in groups. As well, relevant documents were collected and key events in the life of the school were observed. The focus of the research was on: 1. 2. 3.

What are the characteristics and practices of principals leading underperforming schools and what influences these? Who else contributes to the leadership of these schools and what are their contributions? How does the context influence the performance of these schools?

As the methodology is that of the ISSPP, the interested reader can access further details through the project website as listed above.


│ 25

The Cases We now consider the three cases in terms of the contextual influences on the leadership of the schools. Space limitations preclude a full understanding of these cases, but further details can be found in doctoral theses associated with this research. The first two schools come from the doctoral research of Fiona Longmuir (2017) and the third school from the yet to be published doctoral research of Kieran McCrohan.

Two Schools with High Educational Advantage: Tiverton College and Fairview High School Tilverton College and Fairview High School are secondary schools in suburbs of Melbourne, Victoria. These two schools were characterised by cultures, reputations and educational approaches that were highly innovative and alternative. They were recognised as unusual in comparison to similar local schools that tended to be more traditional and conservative. These two schools were considered to have high educational advantage based on their parent occupation indices and the socio-economic advantage levels of the communities in which they are located. The Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) is a measure of the educational advantage of a school community based on students’ family background (parents’ occupation, school education and non-school education) and school-level factors (geographical location of a school, proportion of indigenous students). It is used to compare National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) data which are supplied on the My School website (www.myschool.edu.au). ICSEA has a mean of 1000 and a standard deviation of 100. In 2016, both Tilverton College and Fairview High School had an ICSEA of about 1090 which places them in the highest 20 per cent of all schools in Australia for educational advantage. In recent years, these schools had undergone significant re-establishment following a crisis. At Tilverton this was a recommendation for closure following several years of declining enrolments, depleted reputation in the community and staff dissatisfaction. Fairview is one of the oldest secondary schools in Melbourne but also experienced declining enrolments in the early years of the 1990s and was closed in 1994. The school was reopened in 2004 following significant community protest over the closure and lobbying for the eventual reopening. The principal leadership that was investigated at these two schools oversaw different phases of the improvement journeys. Michael was an external principal appointment at Tilverton around the time that recommendations for closure were being responded to. He oversaw rapid, innovative and disruptive change to the culture, structure and purpose of the school. Robyn at Fairview had been involved in the leadership of the school from the stage of planning for the school’s re-opening. She had moved through leadership roles within the school until her appointment as principal in the school’s fifth year of operation. Under the leadership of these principals, both schools demonstrated improvements on measures of success including significant increases in enrolments, higher levels of student, staff and

26 |


parent satisfaction (as measured by system surveys) and indications of improvement in school averaged measures of student achievement on NAPLAN and final year (Victorian Certificate of Education) results. Institutional Context These two schools are part of the Victorian Government Department of Education and Training (DET). The DET was an early adopter of autonomy and self-management practices with schools having high levels of control over aspects such as staffing and resourcing since the late 1980s (Caldwell & Spinks 2013). This context assisted both these schools to pursue their alternative and ultimately successful agendas. For example, at Tilverton College, the principal did not see being part of a large system/bureaucracy as a problem. Indeed, he noted that the school had largely been free to do as it had wished, and, as the school’s success and positive reputation had grown, the system had been more supportive and less intrusive. I’ve got to say the bureaucratic system in the education department has been much too maligned. It’s everyone’s excuse, I can’t do this, they’d never go with it … [but] it was only when we were on the front page of the [local newspaper] and I got a please explain … That’s the only interference that I’ve ever had. They love it … If they are in the education department they are often educators … and they walk in and feel the vibe … They are in my court. (Principal TC) The flexibility and autonomy available enabled decisions such as staff appointments. In these contexts, hiring the right people contributed to an aligned and motivated staff who were committed to the vision and goals of the schools. I mean there has been a lot of changes in staff. When he first arrived, I think he gave staff the option of whether they wanted to come on board with the new vision or perhaps seek another school that kind of suited their style more. So, I think over time he has attracted more teachers who share his vision. I think the effect is cumulative. (School Council Member TC) The most important is the ability to hire staff. I think Robyn has been terrific at that … And I have been on those interview panels with her and I think it is about having that idea of what you want. If you know what your vision is then you start to work out what are the types of people that are going to be able to deliver that vision. (School Leader FHS) Community Context The high advantage of the two communities that these schools are situated in is thought to have had a reciprocal impact on the nature of the improvement strategies that were evident. Research has suggested that families from higher advantage backgrounds have greater engagement with school choice, greater parental involvement in student learning, higher expectations of their schools and more positive attitudes toward schools (Driscoll & Kerchner 1999; Leithwood, Harris & Strauss 2010; Lubienski & Lubienski 2014; Villavicencio 2013).


│ 27

The students attending these two schools came from the local suburb as well as a proportion of students who by-passed other schools to attend Tilverton or Fairview. Some families selected these schools after withdrawing their children from other secondary schools, with some students commuting for up to an hour each way to attend each day. Both school leaders developed strong pre-enrolment processes that ensured all those that chose their schools were well informed about the philosophies and structures they should expect. Every single student that comes into the school has to have a tour with [the principal]. So that sort of means that you are going to get more people who are like minded because others won’t come because it won’t suit them. (School Leader TC) Everything we do, the website, the open days. We invite people to come in as much as possible to see what we are like. We will not enrol a student who doesn’t come here and have a look. Because it has to be a good match, it has to be a place – we cannot have people who have a preconceived idea that they want a traditional education in a sense of kids in rows, in boxes, in classes, in uniform, in whatever. Because that is not what happens here. (Principal FHS) This study indicates that the intentional focus of the leaders to ensure informed school choices, and then prioritising strong connections with parents through leaders being available (for example, personal mobile phone numbers were provided to parents and students) and communicating regularly resulted in high levels of connection to the schools, support for the leadership and enthusiasm for innovative approaches to improvement. The Exhibition Nights are an opportunity for everyone in that community of that class/year level to come together … I think a lot of the parents are fairly like-minded in terms of their personalities, just having a lot of them chosen the school, it is no great surprise that a lot of them connect and get on pretty well … I think that really adds to the community feel. It’s a really strong sense of community. (Principal FHS) The reciprocal nature of influence between leadership and community developed through the early vision and direction attracting informed, engaged and aligned community members who supported the development of further innovative and alternative approaches. Successes enhanced the reputation of, and trust in, the schools and the leadership. This then predisposed the community to support further innovative initiatives. There is definitely something about the context and the community. I think the fact that we are a fairly new school is really important because there is a mandate for being innovative … I think a lot of the people who are attracted to the school are attracted because they feel that we share their values and that probably means we are lucky in that the community we have got is in tune with what we do, and also, we do what the community wants of us. (School Leader FHS)

28 |


Socio-Cultural Context The socio-cultural contextual influences impacted strongly on the innovative responses to the re-establishment of these two schools. The leaders demonstrated strong commitment to core values of equity, diversity and citizenship. They were both highly aware of broader social challenges including increasing prevalence of disengagement, youth mental health challenges and the need for schools to educate young people for uncertain futures. I just think that the vision that she has provided has been unwavering and that she really knows what is most important, she always reminds me all the time the students they are the number one. (School Leader FHS) It’s a very welcoming school, it doesn’t matter where you are from or what your culture or all that sort of stuff. It’s very diverse. (Student FHS) These values underpinned the provision of broad opportunities for students to engage in learning and prepare for future pathways. Although these core values are common at a macro socio-cultural level to schools in Australia, the prioritisation of them at the two schools was exceptional and evident broadly in structures and curriculum. Central to the principals’ value-led leadership work was a strong student focus. Examination of the practice of these two principals demonstrated that they developed strong personal connections to students. He gets attached to the students. He likes knowing every student’s name. He likes knowing their backgrounds, what they are interested in and where they are heading and I think that’s what drives him. The main driver is those students and making sure that they always get what they deserve. (School Leader TC) He really cares if it is going well or if it’s not if there is any way he can help. (Student TC) Everyone is so supportive of just anything really, like culture, your sexuality, and if you do have an idea, for example when I asked the Principal if I could do a project on an Aboriginal mosaic design, she was very supportive, she was all for it and it was really good. (Student FHS) They ensured that the cultures of their schools focused on enhancing connections, individualised approaches to learning and strong wellbeing structures. Further, they instigated structures and processes that were unusual in their empowering of students to be involved in school management and decision making. The levels of student agency and involvement demonstrated that the principals leveraged the capacity of students to contribute to innovative school improvement that is not common in most schools. Each and every individual has their place, whereas my old school was more like you were generalised, like you were looked at as one whole. Whereas here you are looked at as that individual. (Student FHS) This consideration of students not only as an outcome of the triumvirate of instructional organisation, school climate and student learning (to return to Hallinger’s model above) but


│ 29

as a resource for contributing to structural and educational capacity of the schools may be examples of novel ways to address modern social and educational challenges prevalent in the socio-cultural contexts that influence these schools. I think the individualised approach to the students is the biggest strength. They take the students’ individual interests and really encourage the students to follow their dreams and their own aspirations and what they want to do. They are encouraged to get involved. They are encouraged to get an idea and run with it and supported to run with it. It helps them have that sense of belonging and ownership of their school. (Parent TC) Economic Context Both schools receive most of their monetary and building resources from the state government. With relatively high educational advantage, the resources the schools are given are adequate but lower than government schools that are serving more disadvantaged communities (see the next case study), or those with similar advantage that are free to charge tuition fees as in the case of Catholic and independent schools. Tilverton College had in 2016 a per student allocation of $12,512, and capital expenditure over 2009-15 of $1,667,852. Fairview High School had a per student allocation of $12,640, and capital expenditure over 2009-15 of $5,432,498. For comparison, here are two non-government schools with similar levels of educational advantage: Catholic College, had a per student allocation of $14,607, and capital expenditure over 2009-15 of $7,944,347; Independent College had a per student allocation of $14,152, and capital expenditure over 2009-15 of $13,014,300. So, as government schools they have lower per student allocations and, at least in these cases, lower capital expenditure than comparable non-government schools. Tilverton made further use of the economic context by a focus on entrepreneurial activities. Entrepreneurship was an important part of the culture at the school and it fitted well with the school’s student-centred philosophies and values. As well as being a vehicle for encouraging student empowerment and agency, entrepreneurial activities contributed to the financial circumstances of the school. Students worked in the school in a variety of roles including gardening, reception and media liaison. Student run businesses, such as animal breeding, and catering, contributed funds to the school. Michael was a role model in entrepreneurship by seeking every opportunity to connect with external service providers and businesses to hire out, or co-locate services with school facilities. These practices reflected the school’s need to gather additional funds, and the general societal trend to encourage entrepreneurial activity. Political Context The response to the political context of education in Australia is of interest in the leadership and improvement of these two schools. The national goals of schooling are presented in the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training & Youth Affairs 2008) and promote equity and excellence

30 |


in education for all young Australians to become ‘successful learners, confident and creative individuals and active and informed citizens’ (p. 8). These goals closely align with the visions and values of these two schools and the leadership developed school cultures that reflect these. Other political influences are less explicit but still prevalent in Australian schools. The most noteworthy of these is public reporting of student achievement results. Tilverton and Fairview are subject to these processes through publication of final year results (Victorian Certificate of Education) and the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) for Year 7 and Year 9 students. Although these two schools had seen mixed performance on these measures, there were overall improvement trajectories in recent years. However, results from NAPLAN and the Victorian Certificate of Education were described as an influence on leadership, and were used as tools to inform improvement whilst balancing the broader values and priorities. I think they think about NAPLAN and there is a lot of evidence that they are working at improving things that need improving but I also think they have got a broad view of what success means which I like. I think that broad view is evident in how they talk about it as well as their ability to say how can we make it as good as it can be. (School Councillor FHS) There are some really talented kids and they are able to really absorb themselves in what they want, what they are passionate about and they are able to pursue that. There’s also kids who are entrepreneurs and there’s kids who invent stuff and they are all encouraged to go ahead and do those sorts of things. So, it depends on how you define achievement. And look I think they are largely pretty happy kids. (School Councillor TC) Both schools also utilised internal accountability processes. Fairview developed on-line, continuous assessment and reporting processes. At Tilverton, students were accountable for their own achievement with every student developing their own individual learning plan that was monitored by a mentor teacher in partnership with their families. Both schools described success that went beyond the requirements of the system accountability process. For example, increased enrolments, high student satisfaction and provision of curriculum options for students to achieve well in areas of their specific learning interest were valued by both schools. Through paying attention to key measures of student learning, and broader measures of success, the leaders navigated and balanced the political contextual factors by selecting and focusing on achievement results in ways that strengthened the schools’ reestablishment as viable, innovative and student-centred. School Improvement Context Hallinger’s (2016: 11) statement of the importance of the school’s improvement context as ‘defining the nature of the principal’s leadership challenge’ is particularly relevant in these two cases. The nature of the challenge for the principals of Tilverton and Fairview was


│ 31

significantly influenced by firstly the ‘crisis’ that had occurred at each school and secondly, the maturity of the improvement trajectory to re-establish the schools. We were on the brink of closure and we needed someone to really come in and have some guts and that’s when Michael came in. He just picked up the school, shook it, cleaned it all out, put it back together and moved it forward. He had the guts to do it. (Teacher TC) He was the kind of kick start the school needed. There were other principals but they didn’t make much impact. Michael came along and he saw potential and he dedicated time and energy into it and over the years it’s progressed and got better and better. (Student TC) The contention from this research is that the decline of these two schools that resulted in the crisis of closure at Fairview and near closure at Tilverton provided the opportunity for a significant break with the past culture and structure of the schools. Combined with the sociocultural and political influences described above, these ‘crisis’ circumstances enabled opportunity to re-engage with core values and beliefs and go beyond incremental improvement to riskier, disruptive and holistic changes. I think he had a strong idea of something to do. Everybody else had just attempted to do what everyone else was doing around them. I think that by bringing in some new things, he was then able to grow the school. (School Leader TC) Research at these two schools provided an opportunity to compare re-establishment at two different stages of maturity, with Fairview approximately five years further along a journey improvement than Tilverton. It was evident that the leadership of the principal at Tilverton was significantly more directive, explicit and visionary resulting in disruptive innovation across all elements of the school. If you are going to get genuine innovation, it actually has to come from when something is broken. You know if you tried to do what we have done here in a school that wasn’t broken, there would be massive opposition. Because half the people would go ‘what’s wrong, why change it, it’s always been like this, my kid went through this, I went through this’. When I interviewed the staff when I started here, I said, ‘What should we stop doing, start doing and keep doing?’ and essentially almost to an individual they said, ‘Do whatever you want, do it quickly and stop asking us.’ So, all they needed was a united vision to pull them together and they were ready to go. (Principal TC) At Fairview, while the principal was still focused on innovative improvement, it was more considered and incremental, building on the past successes and an established vision. We are more organised. Because we are bigger and we have to be. Like in the early days we could be really organic about what we did, but you can do that with 15-20 staff and a couple of hundred kids, it’s easy. Once you have got, we’ve got 600 people here every day, you have to, we’ve got more processes in place now. We have more

32 |


time to spend on how we do things more effectively … So, our size has meant we have to be more rigid in our structures and processes. (Principal FHS) So, I guess in the last few years we have started to bring in a lot of structures that change and/or solidify our practices and as best as possible they are built on our values or not and sometimes we have had to change what we do and sometimes that has meant throwing out what we do and putting in something that is just better. But that is a newish thing in the last, I guess, three or four years or so of moving towards that. (Teacher FHS) The improvement context, in combination with the high advantaged community and the personal and professional philosophies, histories and values of the principals, enabled the pursuit of innovative and transformative improvement that differentiated these schools and successfully re-established them.

One School with Low Educational Advantage: Northern College Northern College is a multi-campus co-educational government school born from the amalgamation of three former failing schools in a northern suburb of Melbourne, Victoria. It consists of two Year 7-9 campuses and a Year 10-12 campus. Both Year 7-9 campuses share their sites with a local primary school, and one of these campuses also has an English language centre. This language centre supported the 74 per cent of students with a nonEnglish speaking background at the school. The amalgamation of the three schools was to turnaround the suburb’s entrenched educational reputation of having schools with low expectations and achievement, and to attract local students back to their local secondary school. Northern College is considered to have low educational advantage based on their parent occupation indices and the socio-economic advantage levels of the communities in which they are located. In 2016, Northern College had an ICSEA of less than 890 placing it in the lower 16 per cent of all schools in Australia for educational advantage. The appointment of an executive principal, the first of its kind in Victoria, to Northern College from outside of the three amalgamated schools was symbolic of the need for change. Peter, the executive principal, grew up in the local area and was intimately aware of the social disadvantage that existed. This experience, and his leadership expertise, were important for the new school to establish a high expectation culture not constrained by circumstance. Peter’s focus to bring about whole school change was directed towards building the leadership capacity of his staff to enact what was required to form a new college made up of three failing schools with disenchanted staff and students who were not used to high performance. Institutional Context As a government school, the institutional context of Northern College is similar to that of Tilverton College and Fairview High School. The high level of autonomy and flexibility allowed Peter to undertake significant change at the college throughout his principalship.


│ 33

Having said that, there was guidance sought from the DET and his regional director to support decisions that were integral to the successful foundation of the school. These included decisions that addressed two key areas that required immediate improvement; building the capacity of the leadership team to develop all staff and to address student absenteeism, which saw some students attending less than 60 per cent of the time. Peter was very aware of the shortcomings of his school and sought personnel from the department and other schools to meet these needs. Initially, the school used the department to source an expert in curriculum design to support the staff to construct a guaranteed and viable curriculum. Peter’s ability to identify key personnel with the necessary capacity did not go unnoticed by his teachers. A member of the Principal Leadership Team reflected that developing the right leadership structures was an important strategy of Peter’s, as he was always aiming to ‘put people in the right places with the capacity to build the teachers’ capacity to deliver the programmes effectively’ (Assistant Principal 2). The Department of Education and Training guidelines on attendance (see www.education.vic .gov.au/school/teachers/studentmanagement/Pages/engagepol.aspx) place the responsibility on the school to find ways to engage their students to ensure they don’t fall behind both socially and developmentally. Peter had great experience working within the DET, and this familiarity with the system and its policies were essential in understanding when he required the regional director’s support and when he could utilise the autonomy available within a Victorian government school. Due to the dire situation of many students not attending school, it was important that Peter sought support from the system to emphasise the importance of school attendance to the students and parents in his community. He wanted to create a sense of urgency around the low attendance rates of the students by implementing an expectation that if they have unexplained absences greater than 10 per cent, they would not be eligible to move to the next year level. This initiative had to be supported by the Department of Education and Training for 12 months, because only in exceptional circumstances are students allowed to not be promoted to the next year level with their peer group (refer to www.education.vic.gov.au/school/principals/spag/participation/Pages/attendance.aspx). Setting a minimum attendance expectation on students highlighted to the community that, ‘If they [the students] are not here, they are not going to learn’ (Campus Principal 1), and placed some of the responsibility of educational success on students and parents. This expectation led to the development of a policy focused on satisfactory completion. Community Context The community of Northern College was made up of students mainly from the suburb in which the school was located. The initial observation of Northern College made by Peter following his appointment was that there were many students walking past this underperforming school. The school enrolment numbers were low and the student population experienced great disruption due to misbehaviour and absence. Except for those parents who sat on the school council, there had been a history of little, or no, parental

34 |


involvement in the three schools prior to amalgamation. Whilst some in the school community suggested that this meant parents placed a low value on their child’s education, more likely it was to do with parental circumstances (in the local area only 50 per cent of the population had achieved Year 12 or equivalent, and this was significantly below the general population) (Hume City Council 2017), and the previous schools’ inabilities to engage with parents. Nevertheless the low level of parental engagement did little in terms of supporting the vision of the college. As a result, Peter identified the need for greater connection between the school and home to support the attendance of students; as already mentioned, some students’ attendance was as low as 60 per cent, and one of the amalgamated schools had an average student absence of 35 days per year (that is seven weeks in what is effectively a 40 week school year). This level of attendance, which had been accepted for too long, was a significant hurdle for the school to improve. As such, greater accountability for students to attend was implemented, along with clear structures for teachers to follow in the event of low attendance. As well as needing to meet the minimum attendance requirements to ensure promotion to the next year level, students were expected to arrive at school on time. A system called ‘Time Counts’ was developed. ‘Time Counts’ required students to be seated in class by 8:45am. If a student was marked as late three or more times in a week, they were required to work for 30 minutes of their lunchtime on missed learning. During an observation of the school, staff members on duty at the beginning of the school day regularly announced, ‘Time Counts’ as a signal to the students to move to class quickly. This very visible strategy, along with the expectation of regular attendance at school, quickly changed students’ perception of the importance of their education and the accountability that comes with that, as reflected by a member of the Parent group: One of the strengths of this school is the teachers will call me at home to tell me that my son has had a great week. His marks represent he has received a lot of support. The teachers respect the students. My eldest son was threatened with having to repeat a year because of his attendance. He was not happy with this. As a result of their continued focus on attendance and punctuality, the target of 90 per cent attendance for all students was achieved for the years 2014 to 2016. Peter realised to support the community in understanding the commitment required by students to achieve their best, he needed clear accountability measures that would be noticed. As Hallinger (2016) identified, to ‘break the cycle’ of failure, strong leadership is paramount. Peter recognised this and prioritised the need to build the leadership capacity of his principal leadership team in the first instance through a rigorous Coaching for Success programme, as well as targeted professional learning opportunities, using research literature that supported the school’s context and improvement trajectory. Peter was realistic from the beginning about the school improvement journey he was required to take: I realised I couldn’t do it on my own, they just would have kicked me off. I had to get a Principal Class around me, that was number one, that would work and was


│ 35

responsive. At the same time train up the leadership team, leading teachers, provide them with PD. (Principal) The coaching programme created a foundation on which all future changes within the community could be built, as coaching was the approach used to turn around the prospects of the school, its students and the capacity of its staff. The leadership team were aware of what Peter was trying to achieve and their role in the school improvement process: He’s totally focused on building the capacity of his leaders. He really believes that that’s the number one thing. He does a lot of other things but that’s definitely what he would say is the main thing. It’s true, because unless he is creating a team of people below him who can go on and do it, it’s never going to happen. By focusing on building our capacity, and the way he has built our capacity through the coaching, not just delegating but wanting to know everything that’s going on through asking questions, but in such a supportive and caring way, then it means he is modelling to us the way in which we can model to the people that are working for us. (Campus Principal 2) Through improving student attendance, Peter was clearly trying to create a community that valued education and shared the responsibility for every student’s learning. This was enhanced by building the capacity of his leaders to support the changes necessary for school improvement to happen. These changes helped improve the perception of the school, starting from those that matter most, the students. From the broad group of students interviewed for this study, all of them aspired to make a difference to others and/or enhance their opportunities in life. Some of the students’ aspirations included: I want to become an architect and work overseas. I want to study hard to get a good ATAR, so I can attend a university overseas. (Student 1) I want to become a teacher. I want to go back to Africa and teach them to speak properly. (Student 2) I have high aspirations. I am school captain. General interests in law and politics. Looking at attending Deakin University. (Student 3) This change in attitude was far different from the school Peter inherited at the very beginning of his tenure, where the recognition of 63 per cent of students being offered a tertiary placement was accompanied by the statement in the school’s annual report, ‘This is a vast improvement on previous years’. In the final year of Peter’s tenure at Northern College, 98 per cent of students were offered a tertiary place, thus highlighting an enormous growth in students wanting to continue their education and improve their opportunities in life. Socio-Cultural Context The core values of the principal of Northern College centred on his relentless pursuit of quality education, and strong moral purpose to do the best for students. Peter’s belief, that every child deserves a rewarding education that delivers a long-term benefit, was evident in

36 |


his catch cry of, ‘low socio-economic does not mean low achievement’. This phrase echoed through his leadership team, as he went about building their leadership capacity to lead school improvement: To support students to achieve their best, Peter has been building leadership capacity and making sure they have that sense of moral purpose. Yes, we have stacks of kids coming into Year 7 that are way behind, but we can catch them up if we are relentless, if we are urgent and focused on student learning. We believe we can. So, focus on leadership capacity, making sure they have all got that moral vision, making sure they have all got that relentless drive to make it happen and to believe it can happen. (Campus Principal 2) Throughout his tenure, Peter’s integrity was unquestionable, yet, as a result of his high expectations, there was a large turnover of staff and a high number of student expulsions from the school. Each decision required a difficult conversation but highlighted the culture Peter wanted to create to transform Northern College into an attractive school and one that the community could be proud of. Peter realised it was of mutual benefit if he could recruit good quality staff: You constantly look for the best staff. And if you can surround yourself [with quality staff], as the principal, it will lift you and you will go to different heights in your leadership and you will be challenged by it. You will improve further your own leadership skills. (Principal) Peter’s trust in his leaders echoed the confidence he had in successfully leading a team. This confidence was drawn from previous experiences at leading a high performing school, and the emphasis he placed on embedding all of his decisions on sound research. Peter was comfortable to declare that he had ‘never had an original idea in my life’. This humble declaration reflected his commitment to evidence-based decision making. Peter believed that research based decision making is … going to keep you directional and provide support and gives people who are a little bit doubtful of the direction or a bit unsure, it is going to give them something to read and understand. It is a theory and this is how it can work in practice. They can relate to the actual things that are happening at our school to the theory in the book. (Principal) Peter drew upon research to support improvement in his school and focused, for example, on strong leadership that is shared, high expectations, teacher efficacy, ensuring an orderly environment, and a focus on key priorities. As a result of consistently drawing on research and building the capacity of his staff to review literature that supported any change, there was a noticeable shift in the school’s culture: In terms of the culture we still refer to the research a lot. In terms of everything we do we’re evidence based and I think staff understand that. They are very comfortable with doing professional reading and knowing that the rationale for everything that we


│ 37

do comes from evidence based. I think staff understand that now and don't question things so much because of that. (Campus Principal 2) To support the shared leadership, a visual representation of the key priorities of the school was developed. This clearly articulated the vision and direction of the school and it was a key communication tool with staff. For example, identified on the diagram was the key priority of a common teaching approach to address the low literacy and numeracy skills of the students, along with actions staff were required to take to fulfil this priority. The staff appreciated the multi-modal approach taken to communicate the school’s vision and actions. It [road map] is a perfect visual illustration of the things and structures put in place that are here. These highlight the things that didn’t exist before. (Assistant Principal 2) This explicit approach to change was necessary to ensure the school’s vision was attainable through its delivery of the identified evidence based ‘best practices’. Economic Context The school received most of its monetary and building resources from the state government, with a lesser contribution from the federal government and small contributions from families. With relatively low educational advantage, the resources it received were higher than government and non-government schools that were serving more advantaged communities; refer to the previous examples. The College had in 2016 a per student allocation of $17,320, and capital expenditure over 2009-15 of $5,592,319. As well as state and federal government support, Peter recognised the opportunities that existed through seeking funding from external agencies. Any additional funding from such alliances could be used to implement programmes to enhance student learning, employ more literacy and numeracy coaches, and provide professional development opportunities for staff that would otherwise be unaffordable. The school sought funding from agencies, such as Social Ventures Australia (www.socialventures.com.au), which offers funding, investment and advice to support schools in disadvantaged areas to help their students overcome their social barriers to success. The approach taken by the school to seek funding included being involved in ongoing projects, such as the ‘Growing Great Teachers’ project (www.socialventures.com.au/work/growing-great-teachers) and the school developing their social and emotional curriculum to address the needs of students from a socially disadvantaged area. To implement such a programme required a great deal of professional development and time for staff to document, so Peter was realistic: ‘The only problem we had was that it was going to cost us big bucks to do and needed time.’ Although realistic, Peter was relentless in his pursuit of funding, as he realised it was something that has been done elsewhere in the world to improve schools: State schools traditionally don’t have access to outside resources of funding like that, not like the UK and other places. So we wanted to be the first to get in on that. (Principal)

38 |


Staff felt they could be innovative in their roles and that Peter would find ways to support anything that would improve student outcomes: He encourages teachers to develop programmes to support the kids, making sure and ensuring that funding is available and working out how to spread it widely enough so that programmes that support students’ learning are implemented and shared. (Assistant Principal 1) It was this relentless desire to pioneer approaches to school improvement through innovative ideas that enabled Peter to support the school’s priorities for teaching and learning and provide every student a better chance of success. Political Context As outlined earlier, the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training & Youth Affairs 2008) provided an over-arching vision for all Australian students. Northern College’s vision for their students was prefaced by the statement, two years of learning in one for all students; a reflection on the low levels of literacy and numeracy shown by many students when they entered the school in Year 7. This situation was regularly made clear by the principal during staff meetings to create a sense of urgency around the change that was required. That was one of the things he did, he highlighted the challenge ahead of us and we were receiving students with literacy levels that were two years, or below, behind. These are the students we have and it is our job to get them to a standard to improve their life outcomes by finishing high school. This is what we have got and we need to rise up to the challenge. (Assistant Principal 2) As there were a number of students beginning high school at least two years behind their expected literacy and numeracy levels, to ‘catch them up’ the school embarked on an ambitious goal of delivering two years of learning growth in one year. Although the school was mandated to participate in NAPLAN testing in literacy and numeracy for all Year 7 and Year 9 students, and used these data to track performance and growth, it also used the On Demand Testing system provided by the department (see: www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Pages/ prep10/ondemand/index.aspx) to closely monitor performance in English and mathematics across all years 7 to 10. NAPLAN data were available every second year for each cohort of students, as they are tested in Year 7 and Year 9, whereas On Demand testing could be completed at any time for all students. Therefore, the On Demand testing data were used to track more closely how well the College was meeting its own goal of two years of learning growth in one, and to help teachers, along with their coaches, to plan their own teaching goals. This structured approach to capacity building maximised the opportunity for improvement across the College, as recognised by one of the campus principals: They [the coaches] are now working purposefully to get teachers working together, analysing data, grouping kids flexibly and doing lots of formative assessment on a


│ 39

regular basis, leading moderation sessions, helping teachers understand what high quality student performance looks like. (Campus Principal 2) Although much of the focus on schools in Australia is on achievement on standardised tests such as NAPLAN, Northern College’s vision embraces a long-term vision of developing a love of lifelong learning and equipping students with the opportunity to lead a purposeful and fulfilling life beyond school. This reflects the deep moral purpose that was evident in not only the principal but in many of the staff. This belief is supported by the school’s guiding principles of diversity, achievement and success, which are visible in the College’s documentation and its learning environment, as well as the vernacular of its students: My friendship group is made up of diverse cultures, they need support but we motivate each other no matter what. Our goal is to get through secondary school as well as we can. (Senior School student) The leadership team recognised that the engagement of students attending Northern College needed to be harnessed beyond the promise of academic success by also offering courses focused on industry experience and hands on learning, as alternatives to the academic focused Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE). Such learning opportunities for students highlight how Northern College lives by its vision, addresses the school’s guiding principles and promotes the strong moral purpose held by its leaders and staff. This moral purpose, driven by Peter and tied to the school’s vision was often cited: Peter would say how things used to be but to focus on what is happening now and how we want it to be in the future. Knowing in the end that we wanted to commit to student outcomes, was fantastic for me. I wanted to be part of this because I felt he was honest in his commitment to the kids and their success. (Campus Principal 1) There is no better indicator of Peter’s success in developing lifelong learners than the marked increase in students applying for, and successfully achieving, a tertiary education offer. As previously highlighted, over the course of Peter’s tenure this increased from 63 per cent to 98 per cent of students being offered a tertiary education to continue their learning journey. Peter’s ability to communicate a clear moral purpose has helped drive the change at Northern College and to build a culture that could meet the vision of the school and of the growing expectations of the wider community. School Improvement Context When Peter was appointed to the school he understood that it was important to establish a clear school improvement direction. Peter demonstrated directive leadership to establish a high expectation culture and a physically and emotionally safe environment for all. He also focused on developing a strong leadership team, and distributing leadership ever more widely as the capacity of staff grew. Coaching, and targeted learning opportunities facilitated by internal and external personnel provided the necessary capacity building. Peter’s approach to school improvement was unrelenting:

40 |


He’s totally focused on building the capacity of his leaders. By focusing on building our capacity, and the way he has built our capacity through the coaching, then it means he is modelling to us the way in which we can model to the people that are working for us. That’s what’s creating the culture, the modelling that he is providing. He knows it and he never gives up on it and it never changes and he never forgets. (Assistant Principal 2) The improvement agenda was also supported through several critical friends to the school (Huerta Villalobos 2013) who, whilst external consultants, acted on a regular basis to provide advice and professional support. One critical friend provided professional learning for middle-level leaders twice per term for more than three years. The focus on building leadership capacity was to ultimately improve the conditions for teaching and learning. The development of Curriculum Design Teams (CDT) supported the need for a whole-school focus on teaching, learning and assessment approaches. These teams, each with their own leading teacher, created a guaranteed and viable curriculum that could then support the teaching practices of staff and promote appropriate assessment practices, such as moderation between teachers. Through the CDT, peer coaching and observations were an expectation, leading to stronger collaborative practices and a culture of relentless improvement. Such a culture built a shared belief amongst the staff that they could implement the change that was required to better the opportunities for the students: I think the belief that we can, and do make a difference is one that has certainly changed. The culture that Peter has created is something that has been a focus of our meetings where we look at what is the culture we are trying to create and how are we going to create it. (Assistant Principal 2) Developing such a culture came about from the principal’s identification and development of the school improvement direction and his commitment and drive required to create a quality school.

Discussion The most obvious aspect to note is that the contextual leadership framework of Hallinger (2016) can be applied to the cases. Now this is an abductive approach to analysis, but nevertheless it seems to be an analysis that is helpful in understanding the cases. Whether the principals or schools were fully aware of operating in these contexts is not known from this analysis, but it is clear that behaviours and intentions on the part of principals and other school leaders could be linked to each of the six contexts. What is also evident from the findings is how the principals were able to engage with and utilise the multiple contexts to improve their schools. This was a feature of the successful school principals in the ISSPP (for example see Day 2005; Drysdale 2011; Gurr 2014; Gurr & Day 2014), and it seems that the principals in these underperforming schools were operating in similar ways. Now, of course, these schools were on an improvement pathway, and one of


│ 41

the principals had been a successful principal previously, and so perhaps this finding is not surprising. But it does reinforce the idea that whilst context matters, perhaps it matters less than is commonly claimed. Indeed, successful principals, and the three principals described here, seem to not be constrained by context. The ISSPP has generated several models of successful school leadership, and Gurr (2015) has captured these into a single model with the suggestion that this model can describe the work of school leaders in many contexts around the world. Leithwood and colleagues (e.g., Day et al. 2010; Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris & Hopkins 2006; Leithwood, Harris & Strauss 2010; Louis, Leithwood, Walhstrom & Anderson 2010) have for more than a decade described a four element leadership framework that includes practices associated with building vision and setting direction, understanding and developing people, redesigning the organisation, and managing the teaching and learning programme. These four practices are viewed as being core to principals and other school leaders around the world. Indeed Leithwood et al. (2006) claimed that it was not the practices that change across contexts but how leaders apply them. This was supported by Day et al. (2010) who also described these practices and claimed that whilst successful leadership utilised these basic leadership practices, that there was no single model for achieving success. They went further to describe how differences in context affect the nature, direction and pace of leadership actions. We see these elements in the cases described in this paper. How the principals exercised leadership was somewhat different across their different contexts. For example, Peter and Michael could introduce more rapid and directive change as their contexts were dire, and as shown by Day et al. (2010), in challenging contexts leadership actions were often more directive and focused on core issues such as safety and setting behaviour expectations. Robyn was building upon an established school direction and so was slower and perhaps more considered in what changes were introduced. However, it wasn’t only that they responded to their contexts, all three principals purposefully leveraged certain contextual elements. Michael used the closure crisis, and perceptions about the system not catering for individual student need, to support his approach. Robyn also used the focus on individual student need to continue her school’s trajectory. Peter used poor academic history as the stimulus for major change. These choices both played to and aligned with the needs and culture of the three communities. The high-advantage communities wanted alternative approaches that recognised and supported the individual needs of students. The low advantage community wanted their students to have a chance to achieve more, and they wanted a local school that they could trust to deliver this. All three principals had clear direction, two were focused on developing staff (Robyn and Peter), they were all able to redesign their schools, and there was a clear focus on improving teaching and learning. So, contexts do matter but not so much in terms of the core leadership practices that lead to success, but rather in the way these practices are employed. Longmuir (2017) utilised the ideas of best practice and next practice to consider the leadership of Fairview High School and Tilverton Secondary College. Here we draw on this analysis and extend it to include Northern College. Best practice is an approach to addressing

42 |


improvement needs by identifying, codifying, familiarising and adopting strategies that have proven successful in other settings while next practice is ‘emergent innovations that open up new ways of working’ (Hannon 2008: 79). Tilverton demonstrated an almost consuming passion for seeking out next practice ideas. Nothing was sacred, and since Michael’s arrival as principal, new ideas were introduced continuously, driven by the overarching desire to meet individual student needs. Interestingly, Tilverton has now become a best practice school, with Michael having started working with other schools to replicate some of Tilverton’s key approaches. Fairview had been established as a next practice school focused on the latest ideas about middle-schooling. By the time Robyn became principal, these ideas had become best practice and were increasingly being adopted by mainstream schools. Robyn, however, was interested in next practice and so introduced new ideas, but in a careful and considered manner so that they had a good fit with the school’s established direction. For Peter at Northern College, his approach was to draw on best practice to construct a school that would meet the needs of the local community. There were some next practice elements, such as the ‘two for one’ improvement philosophy, but most of what Peter implemented were drawn from well-known and proven ideas. To paraphrase Longmuir’s (2017: 201) summation, the responsiveness of the leadership and community at the three schools to the broad contextual influences led to the instigation of the disruptive, innovative and transformative improvement trajectories. Leadership, appropriately balanced between ‘next’ and ‘best’ practice at these schools, worked toward a desire to ‘recast today’s schools in a form more suitable to the needs of tomorrow’s students’ (Leithwood 2008: 75).

Conclusion We already know that context matters for school success but how much it matters appears to be situational and dependent on the characteristics of the principal. Papers such as Hallinger’s (2016) seek to understand the relationship between leadership and context. This paper shows that whilst context matters it is not necessarily insurmountable and can be used to influence school outcomes positively. Like a river that forges and carves through the complex terrain, successful leaders can find a pathway through the various layers and levels of context. Each river is unique but follows common processes. Rivers can meander, rush, find their way around obstacles, and cut through barriers. In some instances, the terrain can facilitate the flow of the river and help it on its journey. Like strong rivers, successful leaders are able to navigate through contextual levels to get to their destination. They are not muted or overwhelmed by context. Our research suggests that we can view the work of principals operating within distinctive context levels, and that successful principals will use a range of inventions, behave in ways that reflect their personal characteristics and values, and navigate a pathway to positive outcomes for students and the school. Our research shows that various levels of context impact and shape the task, mission and leadership challenge. The characteristics of the principal were important in how each principal perceived and dealt with the context, with their leadership approach, style and strategies being contingent on the


│ 43

circumstances and the stage of their school’s improvement journey. The relationship is complex but our cases give valuable insight into the dynamic processes between context and leadership. With principals that are less successful, it may be that context plays a larger part in how their leadership impacts on their school, and one that makes successful outcomes more difficult to achieve. There is certainly more research to be done into the relationship between context, leadership and school success.

References Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. (2013). The Self-Transforming School. London, UK: Routledge. Day, C. (2005). Introduction to the ISSPP. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 533-538. Day, C., & Gurr, D. (Eds.) (2014). Leading Schools Successfully: Stories from the field. London, UK: Routledge. Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., & Brown, E. (2010). 10 Strong Claims about Successful School Leadership. Nottingham, UK: National College for Leadership of Schools and Children's Services. Driscoll, M., & Kerchner, C. (1999). The Implications of Social Capital for Schools, Communities and Cities. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Administration (2nd ed.) (pp. 385-404). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Drysdale, L. (2011). Evidence from the new cases in the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP). Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(4), 444-455. Gurr, D. (2014). Successful school leadership across contexts and cultures. Leading and Managing, 20(2), 75-88. Gurr, D. (2015). A model of successful school leadership from the International Successful School Principalship Project. Societies, 5(1), 136-150. Gurr, D., & Day, C. (2014). Thinking about Leading Schools. In C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds.), Leading Schools Successfully: Stories from the field (pp. 194-208). London, UK: Routledge. Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., Longmuir, F., & McCrohan, K. (2018 – in press). Successful School Leadership that is Culturally Sensitive but Not Context Constrained. In E. Murakami, D. Gurr, & R. Notman (Eds.), Leadership, Culture and School Success in High-Need Schools (pages to be confirmed). Washington, DC: Information Age Publishing. Hallinger, P. (2016). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Online First( December 2, 2016), 1-20. Hannon, V. (2008). Should educational leadership focus on 'best practice' or 'next practice'? Journal of Educational Change, 9(1), 77-81. Huerta Villalobos, M. (2013). The role of the critical friend in leadership and school improvement. M.Ed thesis, The University of Melbourne. Hume City Council. (2017). Hume City (retrieved from http://profile.id.com.au/hume/schooling). Lee, M., & Hallinger, P. (2012). Exploring the impact of national context on principals’ time use: Economic development, societal culture, and educational system. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 461-482. Leithwood, K. (2008). Should educational leadership focus on best practices or next practices? Journal of Educational Change, 9(1), 71-75.

44 |


Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Seven Strong Claims about Successful School Leadership. Nottingham, UK: National College of School Leadership. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading School Turnaround: How successful leaders transform low performing schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Longmuir. F. (2017). Principal leadership in high-advantage, improving Victorian secondary schools. PhD thesis, The University of Melbourne. Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Learning from Leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Minnesota: University of Minnesota. Lubienski, C., & Lubienski, S. (2014). The Public School Advantage: Why public schools outperform private schools. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training & Youth Affairs. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Canberra, ACT: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training & Youth Affairs. Petersen, K. D., & Deal, T. E. (2009). Shaping School Culture: Pitfall, paradoxes, and promises (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Raihani. (2007). Successful school leadership in Indonesia: A study of the principals’ leadership in three successful senior secondary schools in Yogyakarta. PhD thesis, The University of Melbourne. Raihani. (2008). An Indonesian model of successful school leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(4), 481-496. Villavicencio, A. (2013). ‘It's our best choice right now’: Exploring how charter school parents choose. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(81), 1-19.

Author Details David Gurr The University of Melbourne Email: [email protected] Lawrie Drysdale The University of Melbourne Email: [email protected] Fiona Longmuir The University of Melbourne Email: [email protected] Kieran McCrohan The University of Melbourne Email: [email protected]


│ 45

Four Successive School Leaders’ Response to a High Needs Urban Elementary School Context Nathern S. Okilwa and Bruce G. Barnett

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to examine how four successive principals read and responded to a high needs elementary school context and were able to turn around and/or sustain academic performance. We purposely selected the school because it fits the characteristics of a high needs school, that is, high poverty and high student mobility, yet has sustained strong academic performance over the years based on state assessments. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the four principals who served the school from the early 1990s, the time when school turnaround started, until the present. In addition, we interviewed three veteran teachers and two parent leaders. Based on their contextual analysis of the community and school, these principals took proactive measures to alter school programs and practices in order to improve student achievement, teacher performance, community engagement, and relationships with district administration. The findings reveal how principals adapt their leadership to the constraints and opportunities in their workplace contexts. Keywords: High needs schools, principals, community and school contexts, school leadership, student achievement, teacher performance, district relationships

Introduction The claim that leadership matters is well established in educational leadership research across diverse settings (Barnett & Stevenson 2016; Dimmock & Walker 2005; Hallinger 2016; Klar & Brewer 2014). However, Hallinger (2016) argues that: … by placing the spotlight on leadership, researchers have unwittingly relegated the context of leadership to the shadows. Yet, until we highlight the interaction between context and leadership, we will remain handicapped in efforts to develop more satisfactory ways to apply leadership knowledge to their specific contexts. (p. 2) Successful school leaders have to lead while being mindful of the contexts within which they work. These leaders are influenced by the context and they adapt their ‘leadership to the needs, opportunities, and constraints in their work contexts’ (Hallinger 2016: 3).

46 |


Walker, Hu and Qian (2012) identify three contextual levels affecting schools: societal, school, and personal. Successful leaders demonstrate an understanding and sensitivity to these varying levels by reading context-specific cues and responding according to the school’s and community’s unique needs. Existing research across multiple settings indicates that school leaders who successfully negotiate and navigate multiple contextual levels engage in four core leadership practices: setting direction, developing people, redesigning the organization, and managing instructional programs (Day & Leithwood 2007; Klar & Brewer 2014; Leithwood, Harris & Hopkins 2008; Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom & Anderson 2010; Mendels 2012). Often, such leaders are placed in challenging low-performing schools to ‘fix things’ and turn the schools around (Duke 2012b; Kowal & Hassel 2011). Consequently, there are initiatives emerging across the country to customize leadership development programs for principals to lead underperforming schools (Duke 2014; McLester 2011). The purpose of this study is to examine how four successive principals read and responded to a high needs elementary school context and were able to turn around and/or sustain academic performance. The paper begins by reviewing the societal- and school-level contextual factors that define and influence schools before highlighting the specific challenges these factors create for urban school principals. Next, the research design, data collection methods, participants, and data analysis strategies are discussed. Findings from interviews with the four leaders serving the school for the past 25 years reveal the important school-level contextual factors they considered when making changes and sustaining reforms. The paper concludes by comparing the findings with existing studies and providing recommendations for practice and future research.

Literature Review Conceptualizations of Context Context is a multi-faceted construct, consisting of external (macro) factors and internal (micro) elements that impact school leaders’ decisions (Clarke & O’Donoghue 2016). Varying conceptualizations in the literature center on the importance of the interaction between the leader and the different levels of context in enacting change. Hallinger (2016), for example, defines contextual understanding to include sociocultural, economic, and political contexts. In addition, Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan and Lee’s (1982) instructional management model suggests successful school leaders consider and adapt their practices to the external community and institutional context. Furthermore, Leithwood (in press) contends contextconscious leaders are mindful of their person-specific context (i.e., the leaders’ professional knowledge, skills, attitudes, and experiences) and widely-shared context (i.e., the broader organizational and environmental setting). Finally, Walker and his colleagues (2012) offer a multidimensional conceptual framework of context within which school leaders operate: (a) societal – culture, administrative systems, political ideology; (b) school – location, level, teaching staff, resources, community stakeholders; and (c) personal – age, gender, experience,


│ 47

and knowledge of the principal. For the purposes of this investigation, the first two contextual levels affecting urban schools: societal (macro) and school (micro) contexts are examined in more detail. Societal-Level Context A variety of factors outside the local school community impact schools. These macro-level factors can be long-standing cultural values, social and economic trends, and government policies, which are examined below. Cultural values. Societal norms and values affect communities, schools, and their leaders. In certain Asian cultures, for example, Confucian values of respecting authority, avoiding conflict, seeking harmony, and saving face are prominent (Walker et al. 2012). To maintain harmony and avoid conflict, principals are less inclined to observe classroom teaching practices or to suggest instructional improvements for teachers (Kwan 2009; Lee & Hallinger 2012; Pan 2012). In addition, Arab societies tend not to accept women in formal leadership roles; therefore, female principals evaluating male teachers find it difficult to provide them with constructive feedback. Furthermore, powerful families (i.e., hamullas) in the community can overrule principals’ decisions about teachers’ performance reviews and/or dismissal, pressuring principals to compromise their values and decisions when working with underperforming teachers (Arar 2014). Social and economic trends. Lee and Hallinger’s (2012) study of principals in different societies underscores important ways in which national-level context influences principals’ time use and responsibilities. Their analysis revealed: •

• •

Principals working in countries with high power differentials between roles allocated less time to curriculum and instructional development than school leaders in societies with lower power differentials; Principals in less hierarchical societies spent more time with community members and parents than those in more hierarchical societies; and Principals from developed countries spent more time at school, but less time dealing with curriculum and instruction, than school leaders from developing countries.

Governmental policies. School leaders at the campus and district/provincial levels are greatly affected by the educational policies enacted by state and federal government agencies (Haberman n.d.; Klar & Brewer 2013). Schools with a history of struggling student academic performance and graduation rates have become prime targets for policymakers (Halford 1996). Initially, governments identify shortcomings in the system, which are compromising the quality of education students receive. The Ministry of Education and Science in the Republic of Georgia has acknowledged the problems associated with a centralized governance system, outdated textbooks and programs, inadequate teacher preparation, inefficient funding for schools, and corruption and nepotism (Sharvashidze & Bryant 2014). In Costa Rica, policymakers have identified the key challenges facing the country that include

48 |


… achieving universal preschool and secondary education, improving the quality of the educational system, reducing failure and improving efficiency, focusing on critical moments of transitions across grade levels, and expanding investment in education from 4.8 per cent to 6 per cent. (Slater, Potter, Torres & Briceno 2014: 111). Once these types of problems are identified, governments enact policies to address shortcomings. For instance, because education in India has tended to be elitist and ignored females, policymakers passed the National Policy on Education in 1996, which ensured educational opportunities to all Indian citizens regardless of gender or social class. The law implemented a quota system to allow educationally- and socially-disadvantaged castes to access university education and established incentives (e.g., giving bicycles to girls to travel to school, offering child daycare to allow young female sibling caretakers to attend school) to increase females’ access and retention in schools (Richardson & Sauers 2014). In addition, Mexican principals have used government-financed textbooks, extended-day programs, and programs to reduce school violence to stimulate new teaching practices in reforming their schools (Rincones 2012). Furthermore, during the 1950s, when many Mainland Chinese families moved to Hong Kong, the government responded by building numerous ‘rooftop’ schools on the top of existing buildings in public housing projects (Chung & Ngan 2002). This temporary solution was replaced with another government initiative to work with non-profit religious and charitable organizations and the private sector to finance schools (Sweeting 1995). By the mid-1960s, the government funded the majority of operating costs for these new ‘subsidized’ or ‘aided’ schools (Walker 2004). Finally, the political strategy for resourcing schools in the United Kingdom began with the Locally Managed Schools movement in the 1980s (Higham, Hopkins & Mathews 2009). More recently, the formation of Academy Schools and Free Schools allows private corporations to own and operate schools that were previously part of the Local Government Authority (Gunter 2011). As a result, school leaders are becoming chief executive officers leading publicly-financed independent schools (Gunter & Fitzgerald 2013). School-Level Context The school-level context consists of the features of the surrounding community as well as the school’s infrastructure, principals, teachers, and student population. Community context. Communities reflect a complex array of features including racial and ethnic diversity, family mobility, business and industry operations, and wealth and poverty (Duke 2008, 2012b; Picus, Marion, Calvo & Glenn 2005). School principals deal with a variety of community features that affect students and programs, including family income (Medina, Martinez, Murakami, Rodriguez & Hernandez 2014), unemployment rates (Slater et al. 2014), and ethnic and racial diversity (Szeto 2014). Often, to maintain adequate student enrolment, principals must overcome the school’s history of failure by convincing parents that the school will meet their expectations (Gurr, Drysdale, Clarke & Wildy 2014; Qian 2013; Slater et al. 2014; Szeto 2014). These schools tend to be situated in communities with high crime rates and


│ 49

with families that have been dislocated because of natural disasters, political unrest, and difficulty affording housing (Rincones 2012; Sharvashidze & Bryant 2014; Slater et al. 2014). School context. The resources and infrastructure, leadership and teaching staff, and students in schools vary greatly depending on the communities they serve. The working conditions in schools affect recruiting and hiring school teachers. Teachers in high poverty schools tend to have fewer instructional resources at their disposal and have less control over the curriculum than teachers in other settings (Chung 2005; National Center for Education Statistics 1996). Similarly, the educational infrastructure negatively affects schools, particularly when school boards are politicized, central office bureaucracies are cumbersome, instructional practices are incoherent, data management systems and resources are inadequate, and buildings are in decay (Haberman n.d.; Jacob 2007; National Center for Education Statistics 2006). As a result, teachers must teach outside their licensure area and high absenteeism, low morale, and constant staff turnover are common (Barnett & Stevenson 2016; Duke 2008, 2012b; Picus et al. 2005). In particular, academically underperforming schools experience high turnover of superintendents and principals, instability, and inconsistent program implementation (Haberman n.d.). Filling principal vacancies in underperforming schools is difficult with substantially fewer applications for these positions than in more academically successful schools (The New Teacher Project 2006). Compounding this recruitment problem, principal vacancies occur at the beginning of the school year, making it difficult to recruit and select high quality candidates. Districts also report not having adequate pools of qualified assistant principals to fill principal vacancies (The New Teacher Project 2006). The Context of Urban Schools Gradually, the world’s population is becoming more urban. By 2010, half of the world’s seven billion people lived in cities, with over half of these city dwellers residing in communities of 100,000 to 500,000 people (World Health Organization 2014). The term ‘urbanization’ has become part of our lexicon, acknowledging the transition from a rural agriculturally-based economy to an urban service, technology, and industry-based economy. Besides population shifts to urban communities within the United States, the country has long been a leading host country for the United Nations’ refugee resettlement program through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In 2016, the United States admitted almost 100,000 refugees (UNHCR 2016), approximately 40 per cent who were school age (American Psychological Association 2010). These population shifts influence the urban school-level context as illustrated below. Community Context As large concentrations of people relocate to urban centers, these cities are characterized by intense concentrations of poverty; wide economic, social, and linguistic disparity; and high mobility (Ahram, Stembridge, Fergus & Noguera 2011; Chung 2005; Gordon & Armous-

50 |


Thomas 1992; McClafferty, Torres & Mitchell 2000; National Center for Education Statistics 1996). In the United States, for example, Latina/o students constitute the fastest growing school-aged population in the country, particularly in certain geographical regions (e.g., 50 per cent of school-aged children in Texas) (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). In some instances, parents and community members have low expectations for student performance, which school principals and teachers must battle to overcome (Sarra 2012). Urban schools and communities also are confronted with myriad social challenges that affect parents’ ability to support their families and students’ motivation to attend school. Resource needs are extremely critical given the high levels of poverty, mobility, homelessness, and drug abuse (Duke 2008, 2012b; Picus et al. 2005). These social issues affect many students, including health problems, family relations and stress, teenage pregnancy, dropouts, absenteeism, disciplinary problems, and unemployment (Ahram et al. 2011; Berliner 2009; National Center for Education Statistics 1996, 2006). School context Within urban school systems, certain contextual factors can manifest themselves at the school level. Many urban systems have dilapidated and unsafe buildings; inefficient data management systems; soaring bureaucracies; and inadequate resources for school improvement, professional development, and personnel management (Chung 2005; Haberman n.d.; Jacob 2007; National Center for Education Statistics, 1996, 2006). As a result of these conditions, urban schools often have high teacher absenteeism, low morale, constant turnover of principals and teachers, and an inadequate pool of qualified applicants to fill teacher and principal vacancies (Barnett & Stevenson 2015; Duke 2008, 2012b; Picus et al. 2005; The New Teacher Project 2006). The high turnover rates of teachers and administrators are particularly problematic for maintaining students’ academic performance. Studies indicate that when principals depart, student achievement suffers for the next two years (Miller 2013). Similarly, teacher turnover, especially in schools with low-performing African American students, negatively affects their performance in language arts and math (Ronfeldt, Lankford, Loeb & Wyckoff 2011). Another major challenge occurs when urban educators believe their students are incapable of learning academic content and social skills (referred to as ‘deficit thinking’) because of their social circumstances and family upbringing. They sense parents are less likely to support the school’s efforts to educate their children and are not motivated to provide assistance at home (O’Conner & Fernandez 2006). Many of these beliefs are rooted in negative stereotypes about race and class, leading teachers and administrators to perceive that these students have learning deficiencies as well as behavioral and emotional problems. Despite contextual conditions affecting urban schools, research studies reveal principals can turn around academic performance and facilitate high community and parental involvement (e.g., Duke 2008, 2012b; Salmonowicz 2009; Waits et al. 2006). Recent investigations of turnaround schools in the United States and cross-national studies of successful low-


│ 51

performing schools provide insights regarding how principals and teachers in these schools are making significant differences in student achievement, especially for marginalized students and communities (Chenoweth & Theokas 2013; Klar & Brewer 2013; Ylimaki, Brunderman, Bennett & Dugan 2014; Ylimaki & Jacobson 2011; Ylimaki, Jacobson & Drysdale 2007; Waits et al. 2006). These studies provide evidence that principals and teachers can overcome the legacy of poor performance and expectations plaguing low-performing schools. The study reported here is part of the International School Leadership Development Network (ISLDN n.d.), a multi-national team of educational researchers examining the strategies leaders in low-performing schools employ to improve student performance and understand how internal and external school contexts impact organizational and student performance (Angelle 2017; Bryant, Cheng & Notman 2014). In particular, this low-performing, urban elementary school not only turned around student performance, but has maintained high levels of success for nearly 25 years during the tenure of four principals. We now present the methodology of the study before reporting the findings.

Methodology This study examines four successive principals of a high needs, low-performing school and how they assessed and responded to the community and school contexts in order to turn around and/or sustain students’ academic performance. The study was guided by the overarching research question: How did four successive principals read and respond to a high needs elementary school context that enabled them to turn around and/or sustain academic performance? To pursue this investigation, we utilized qualitative approaches to collect, analyze, and interpret data as well as report the findings.

Site Robbins Elementary School (RES) is nestled in an older neighborhood about five miles from the center of a major urban city in South Texas. We purposely selected the school because it fits the characteristics of a high needs school, that is, high poverty and high student mobility, yet has sustained strong academic performance over the years based on state assessments. High poverty and mobility rates have remained constant over the time period of our study, 1993-2016. The school serves a predominately Hispanic student population, grades PreK-5. In the 2016-17 school year, the ethnic student composition was 83 per cent Hispanic, 8 per cent African American, 7 per cent White, and 2 per cent other ethnicities. These student demographics have not changed significantly over the past 25 years.

Participants Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the four principals who served RES from the early 1990s, the time when school turnaround started, until the present. In addition, we interviewed three veteran teachers and two parent leaders. Interviews with participants

52 |


lasted from 60 to 90 minutes per session. We interviewed Ms. Williams and Ms. Peterson together because their time and leadership at RES were interconnected and the initial school reform is attributed to them. Below is a brief description about the participants. Ms. Williams is retired from education and still lives in the city where RES is located. She was the principal for five years at RES, from 1993/94 to 1997/98. She was hired by the district with a mandate to turn RES around. Prior to the appointment as RES principal, she served as an assistant principal for a year at an elementary school in the district. Williams held teaching positions in several states in the United States and abroad. Also, she formerly served as a teacher appraiser for the state of Texas. Williams stepped aside from the principalship in 1998 for family reasons. Ms. Peterson is currently retired as well. She was principal for three years, from 1998/99 to 2000/01, and succeeded Williams. She joined RES during the second year of Williams’s principalship as a half-time assistant principal at RES and another elementary school in the district. Eventually, she became full-time at RES as the Assistant Principal (AP) and Curriculum and Instructional Coordinator (CIC). Peterson is a native of the city and was raised in the district; however, she attended private schools. She started her teaching in the district, transferred to another district in the city, and then moved back to the AP position at RES. Given her strong interest in curriculum development, after three years as principal, she took a position at the district central office as the head of the Curriculum Department. Ms. Decker was the principal at RES for nine years, from 2001/02 to 2009/10. She is a native of the city and was raised in a neighborhood close to RES. Decker taught in the district for many years, served as a CIC, and served one year as a vice principal at an elementary school in the district. Feeling she had accomplished her goals, Decker decided to retire; however, she is currently an independent education consultant who contracts with school districts to provide coaching for sitting principals. Ms. Robinson, the current principal of RES, has been in the role since 2010. She has been with the district since 1990. Robinson started as a teacher at the elementary school. She served as a CIC, became AP, and principal of another elementary school in the district for two years before her appointment as the RES principal. Veteran teachers. In addition to the four principals, we interviewed three veteran teachers (Ms. Beecham, Ms. Roberts and Ms. Frio) who have taught at RES for over 25 years during the tenure of the four principals. We conducted a one-on-one session with Beecham and then one focus group session with all three teachers. Parent leaders. We conducted a focus group interview with two parent leaders who served during Robinson’s era: community liaison (Ms. Garza) and Parent Teacher Association President, PTA, (Ms. Richmond).


│ 53

Instrument and Data Collection Procedures Interviews with participants were conducted by both researchers, lasting between 60 and 90 minutes. Interviews with Williams, Peterson and Decker were conducted off campus while interview sessions with Robinson, the teachers and parent leaders were conducted at RES near the end of the school day. The principal interviews were guided by six core questions initially designed for the ISLDN (n.d.), ranging from how they were selected for the job to their leadership style. The teachers’ and parent leaders’ interview protocols focused on the transitions between the four principals and how student achievement has been sustained. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed for analysis.

Data Analysis This investigation is part of an ongoing research study of RES (see Okilwa & Barnett 2017). For purposes of this paper, our analysis focuses on the community-level and school-level contextual issues principals took into account and the ways in which they responded to these issues. Both authors analysed interview transcripts for emerging themes, guided by this study’s research question and theoretical underpinnings about context-specific leadership. We each read the transcripts independently coding for the different contextual elements the principals observed and the approaches they utilized to respond to those elements. This process was guided by how Walker and colleagues (2012) conceptualize and organize school context (i.e., community-level and school-level contexts). We compared and agreed on categories using the process described by Saldaña (2013). This process yielded two categories within the community-level: community factors and strategies for engaging the community. We categorized the school-level context into student and teacher performance, district influences, and school improvement strategies. In the following section, we explicate these elements in detail using excerpts from the interviews with our participants.

Findings In this section of the paper, we report on the themes that emerged from our data analysis. Our analysis was guided by the existing frameworks on context-specific leadership and the core question for this study, which is ‘How did four successive principals read and respond to a high needs elementary school context that enabled them to turn around and sustain academic performance?’ The findings are organized around how Walker and colleagues (2012) conceptualize and organize school context: Community-level and school-level contexts.

Reading and Responding to the Community-Level Context As a school leader, one has to be cognizant of the community in which the school is embedded and make an effort to work in concert within that community context. To disregard the community context is to ignore an influential partner in the teaching and learning process. Within this community-level context section, we examine the community factors affecting the

54 |


school and the approaches the principals employed to engage the community. The RES community context presented both challenges and opportunities for the principals. Below, we first present the principals’ understanding of the context in terms of its demographics and parent factors and then the strategies principals used in an effort to engage with them. Community Factors Like any school in a major urban city in the United States today, the RES community is characterized by factors common to minoritized populations in certain pockets of these major cities: high poverty, high student mobility, multi-family and Section 8 housing (i.e., part of the federal affordable housing program managed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development), and single-parent or grandparent-led families. The principals were quite aware of these community conditions, particularly the persistent high mobility rate of families. Peterson recalled, ‘We had a very high turnover of students. We had 40 to 50 per cent every year mobility rate.’ During her era, Decker singled out mobility as a challenging factor: ‘[Robbin’s] mobility rate was … always high, somewhere in the mid to high 20 per cent.’ On the brighter side, Decker noted, ‘Even though mobility was high, there was a core group of kids and parents who stayed at Robbins.’ Many years later, Robinson still talked about mobility: ‘We were registering kids and withdrawing kids almost on a daily basis.’ During Robinson’s era, the school experienced a mobility rate of about 30 per cent. The student mobility situation described here illustrates the transient nature of the community, financial instability, and the presence of low-income housing (e.g., Section 8 and apartment complexes). Peterson and Beecham (one of the veteran teachers at RES) described the connection between mobility and the housing situation. During her tenure, Peterson described the situation as challenging: We have 20-something Section 8 apartments and they fed into our [school] … We have this large population that was coming in and was rotating … And how in the world, by January am I gonna have close to half of my class new … That was a big challenge. Similarly, Beecham noted: We have all these apartment complexes that feed in and you know they do the lease and then they don’t pay and then they leave and come back or a lot of migrants not that they go work in the field but you know they move. Parents’ beliefs, expectations, and actions also presented challenges and opportunities. Williams and Peterson hailed parents who participated on the campus leadership team (CLT) and other parents volunteered to ‘help in the school and in the classroom’. Decker acknowledged, even with transient families, there were core parents who constituted the backbone of the school, they ‘stayed at Robbins … they were very committed to what we were doing, and those were, … my PTA presidents’. However, Decker was clear: ‘I always said that was not my favourite part of the job … dealing with parents. Because you kind of become that political thing.’ Decker’s attitude toward working with parents could have been, in part, due to problematic encounters with parents on arrival at RES. She recalled:


│ 55

I had this parent call [central office] and tell them that I had done something, was ridiculous – It was like a – I was having a Harry Potter convention on my campus. It was really bazaar – And I was like, ‘Really?’… from the beginning the community was watching me. From the very start of her tenure, parents bypassed Decker and contacted central office on frivolous accounts. Decker noted, ‘It was immediately apparent that I was going to have some core group of parents that I needed to be ready to deal with and work with.’ In addition, some parents were driven by egocentric motivations. Decker suggested: You would have parents who really just have needs for their kids, and that’s fine. But you’ve got parents who believe their kids are always right. Their kids can do no wrong, and those were the parents I found really challenging. Robinson also had her share of challenges with parents, which included non-compliance with school routines, mistrust of teachers, low expectations for their children, and lack of homework support. Robinson described the experience with those parents this way: I have a lot of parents that don’t quite want to follow the routines and procedures of the school and so I have to make sure that I enforce those procedures and routines. For example, some of them still don’t want to sign into the campus when they come into the campus. That’s a huge safety issue for all of us. For example, some of them don’t yet trust their teachers and so the teachers here with their high expectations get backlash at first from the parents because how dare you expect them to do all of this at first grade? One parent, for instance, thought that their Pre-K ‘child should not have to memorize their six-digit lunch numbers,’ Robinson said. The parent thought it was an unrealistic expectation. Robinson suggested to the parent: You would be surprised with 90 per cent of our students at the end of the year that can identify their numbers and punch them in in the lunch line so if you want to help us that’s great. If you want for your child to be one that is not able to do it then we’ve got problems. High expectations at RES prompted some parents to consider transferring their children to other schools. Robinson cited one parent’s sentiment: ‘I’m going to take my child someplace else because we can’t keep up with the homework or we don’t think that your expectations are appropriate for their child.’ However, despite individual cases of resistance from parents, the majority of the community was very proud of RES and wanted to maintain the reputation of success. Robinson suggested: I think that there is a responsibility across the community that we will keep Robbins at the level that it is right now. Our community likes very much to have our school be recognized on the news and be recognized in the newspaper for good things.

56 |


Response to Community Context These principals understood, even with demographic and parental challenges, there were benefits to engage parents. The principals established structures and practices that engaged parents and reached out to the business community as well. For instance, a community liaison position was created and staffed, classes and programs for parents were offered, and a push for PTA involvement were all meant to engage parents. Williams and Peterson used the community liaison to increase parent involvement and educate parents in order to support their children’s education at home. Peterson noted the community liaison was ‘the connection between the school and the parents, and over time [from] that group we had many parents coming to volunteer and help in the schools and in the classroom’. She further described the role of community liaison as critical: ‘The emphasis … with the community liaison [was] to try to increase parental involvement and to begin to do little models of educating them in, how to help their children with homework.’ During their era, Williams and Peterson perceived equipping parents with some pedagogical skills to support their children at home as a worthwhile partnership endeavor. The parent liaison was instrumental in this initiative. With the challenges and the attitude Decker had about working with parents, she capitalized on a few supportive parents to, for instance, become PTA presidents: ‘[Parents who] were very committed to what we were doing, those were … my PTA presidents,’ Decker said. Similar to Williams and Peterson’s approach of providing classes for parents, during Robinson’s tenure, the parent liaison (Ms. Garza) initiated parenting classes as well. Beecham noted: [The community liaison] provides parenting classes so we try to get parents to come and it’s during the day and we feed them and provide breakfast so we try and get as many parents as we can to come to learn, give them ideas. We try to do as much as we can to involve the parents and grandparents too. Garza suggested: We’ve worked together to where we do have a lot of parent involvement and that’s basically where I fall into and we have parent engagement, so I have people from the community come out and give whatever resources they may have and parents might need. Furthermore, other inclusive initiatives, such as meet the principal sessions, campus invitations for coffee and classroom visits, home visits, and parent-teacher conferences, became prevalent practices for engaging parents. Williams and Peterson created an open and receptive environment whereby parents wanted to be in the school to volunteer, visit their children’s classes, and attend parent coffees that Williams initiated. Similarly, Robinson promoted a positive campus environment through open lunch and classroom visits: We also invite the community to come in like for lunch. We don’t have a closed cafeteria, I know some schools do. We invite them to come in as often as they need to for lunch, we do invite them if they would like to sit in on the classroom; however,


│ 57

before they do that, I need to kind of have a conversation with them and I also limit it to about 30-45 minutes because after that it kind of becomes disruptive for the teacher. In addition, Robinson went the extra mile to conduct home visits to stress the importance of attendance. Robinson described the nature of these visits this way: We do go out to the community as far as doing home visits on an as needed basis. If we have attendance issues or things like that we do go to do home visits but unless it’s critical and I need to make a surprise visit, we never surprise them just because it makes everybody feel uneasy and you know I wouldn’t want the school just stopping in and saying, oh, we’re here. Parent teacher conferences are traditional ways to engage parents in their children’s education. Some teachers used these conferences in an innovative way, as Beecham described: So, when I had my parent conferences I would have a list of things for them to do with the students at home as far as letter and identification and numbers and just all that to prepare them. Moreover, as earlier mentioned, Robinson conferenced with parents, in large part, to address expectations. She noted: A lot of my time is, especially at the beginning of the year, spent with parents. I have a lot of parents that don’t quite want to follow the routines and procedures of the school and so I have to make sure that I enforce those procedures and routines. Maintaining consistent expectations with parents, teachers, and students was important in creating and sustaining a culture of success. Finally, principals sought the partnerships of community businesses and organizations to support their grand agenda of providing quality educational experiences for RES students and their families. During Decker’s era, she talked about how, for instance, the Texas Business and Education Coalition continually recognized and honored Robbins for its excellent performance. These accolades positioned Robbins as a model school in the district and state, greatly enhancing its profile. Decker noted: Here’s the Business Education Coalition again. It says honor roll, have the highest percentage of students performing at the state’s most rigorous standard, did in every subject. Consequently, Robinson’s era experienced significant partnership with the local businesses and organizations, which provided mentorship, field trip sponsorship, game tickets, food, and nutrition and General Education Diploma (GED) classes for parents. In reference to one business, Garza, the parent liaison, noted, ‘HEB works with us very well, they were close to us.’ She added: HEB came to us because my first year, last year, like I wasn’t too familiar with it because it’s totally different to what I was doing last year. So now I know, I go knock

58 |


on the doors and say I’m with Robbins, with the district, and this is what I do and I want to see what you can offer to the community, we can work together. Indeed, some offered to mentor students as described by Robinson: We started the mentor program several businesses that have mentors that are consistent every single week, they come over, the attorney that’s right up the street. He sends one of his employees, they read with second graders, I think we have five that come on a continual basis. For some business, they provided money for students to go on field trips. Robinson remarked: Also, Medina’s office, used to be right down the street, and several of the businesses have sponsored field trips. Like his office gave us $800 so pre-k could go to the zoo. I don’t know where they get that money from but … it is collective with the staff but everybody cares about these kids. Furthermore, some provided food vouchers and game tickets to promote school attendance. Beecham remarked: The Mexican restaurant right over here, across the street and they support us. For perfect attendance, they would bring tacos so taco vouchers out to kids and staff. We also did that from [NBA team]. Daxton will come for the attendance and the kids will get a free ticket to go to the [NBA] game. And hockey [too]. Lastly, Garza suggested that the Food Bank partnered with them to provide nutrition and GED classes for parents: We do have the Food Bank that also works real close with us where they have classes for nutrition and they also have classes for parents that want to better themselves, get the GED. There was Spanish speaking [parents learning] to speak English. This level of partnership demonstrated how people, businesses, and organizations in the community cared about the success of students, parents and teachers at RES.

Reading and Responding to the School-Level Context When each of the four principals arrived at RES, they were confronted with varying realities. Their reading, understanding, acknowledging, and interpreting of these realities, in large part, shaped their response in terms of their leadership priorities, emphasis, and resource allocations. Our data analysis shows that the principals were consciously aware of and paid attention to student and teacher performance and district influences. Student Performance Two specific areas of student performance caught the attention of the principals: academics and student attendance. When Principal Williams arrived at RES in 1993, the school was in dire need of reform. Williams was given a mandate from the district to turn around the academically low-performing RES. Williams articulated the mandate simply as, ‘to improve


│ 59

student achievement’. However, the district did not prescribe the ‘how’. A year later, when Peterson joined Williams as her Assistant Principal/Curriculum Instructional Coordinator (CIC), they collaboratively worked to identify the needs and determine strategies to meet those needs. Peterson observed, ‘We had still a multitude of students who were falling far behind what other students of similar needs were.’ Reading the context was important in order to create an improvement plan that would in fact bring about the much-needed reform. Unlike Williams and Peterson, when Decker replaced Peterson in 2001, she was faced with a high-performing school. Decker clearly understood and acknowledged the state of the RES when she assumed the principalship: ‘When I went on this campus, they were already performing at a high level, so my – my job was to make them perform at commended, college ready.’ Decker was quite familiar with the reputation of RES because she was a native of the city and was raised in a neighborhood close to RES. Also, Decker taught in the district for many years and served as a CIC. With understanding RES’s context, Decker’s self-imposed mandate or expectation was to build on the existing success. Similarly, when Robinson became principal of the school after nine years of Decker’s leadership, she felt her responsibility was to maintain and improve the school’s performance. On arrival at RES, Robinson noted: [It] was an opportunity for me to come in and see and observe but that was also a challenge because I knew that I also had to maintain that success and those are big shoes to fill. I have a lot of respect for the principals that have been here in the past and those are huge shoes to fill so it was an opportunity but it was also a challenge. Clearly, Robinson understood the academic state of RES and that her charge was to move the school forward. She had worked in the district since 1990, and was familiar with RES as both a low- and high-performing school. Even with that background knowledge, Robinson did not begin with a preconceived agenda. She spent time studying the context: I got to come in and kind of observe which is a lot of what I did at first and observing what systems are already in place? What is working on this campus? What maybe is not working on this campus? Because I knew when I walked in that it was a highly successful campus. Student attendance was a major area of concern for the principals. Students have to be present in school to allow teachers to work with them. Understanding that attendance was an issue, Robinson made it a priority. She noted, ‘We’ve really focused on attendance.’ Response to Student Performance Student improvement was challenging particularly for Williams and Peterson given the state of RES when they arrived. It required and demanded their undivided commitment. Williams suggested:

60 |


We worked 365 and one-fourth days ... We did work and work and work and we stayed at school, especially before a big group meeting, school meeting, and we would stay until 2:00 in the morning. Modeling hard work was important for teachers, students, and parents in the process of changing the existing culture. A demonstration of hard work was accompanied by establishing structures, programs, practices, and expectations that were instrumental in reshaping the culture at RES. Structures such as a buddy system, tutoring, and student data analysis facilitated a culture of shared responsibility for student learning. The task of student improvement needed ‘all hands on deck’ during the Williams and Peterson era. For instance, the buddy system allowed struggling intermediate students to pair up with primary grade teachers. Williams recalled, ‘[For] the children, students who were still at risk, we came up with a plan to buddy them and the teachers were so receptive to everything.’ According to Peterson, the buddy system was born out of ‘William E. Deming’s principle about people working together’. Furthermore, Deming’s (2000) concept of quality circles inspired RES’s concept of the pentathlon, whereby students collaborated to problem solve in a variety of content areas. Peterson noted: [Students] would be at a table and there would be five problem solving questions in math, writing, reading, that they had to collaborate, work together so that every member of that team understood it and could articulate and explain the process of how they solved it. Likewise, in reflecting on the buddy system and mentoring of students, Decker said, ‘We kept it going because it was so powerful.’ The belief in the buddy system was no different for Robinson. She believed this system ensured that ‘primary teachers have just as much of a stake as the intermediate teachers with STAAR results’. She added: So, our teachers give up their conference time or they give up their music time in order to go into those other classrooms and they either take a small group or they monitor the kids while their teachers take a small group so it is very much not just intermediate but it’s primary all the way through. Additionally, the collective effort to promote student success was reinforced through various team approaches, including campus leadership team (CLT), planning committees, grade level, and vertical teams. Through regular team meetings and planning sessions, they identified strengths, weaknesses, and specific ways to support students as well as teachers. Peterson noted, ‘[We identified] the amount of time that they needed to spend on certain concepts, but at the same time we also had to, as teachers, work on how to continue spiralling’ the curriculum. Peterson reiterated, as part of ‘collaborative planning … the grade level would meet for the whole day … that is when we would look at the standards’. Williams added, ‘When the teachers finished their [planning] work with Peterson they had a lesson plan … they left there with a plan … planning [is] the key to the success.’ Similarly, Decker cherished teamwork: ‘team is everything’ and thus encouraged grade level teams to ‘plan


│ 61

together’. In acknowledging the need for team effort, Robinson noted, ‘Everybody has different programs and projects that they’re in charge of.’ Moreover, Robinson promoted collaborative planning: I also think that it is very important that teachers get time for planning. Planning is the key to good instruction. So, if I have an expectation of good instruction, I have to give them time to plan. The regular team meetings became forums for setting goals and expectations, both individual and collective. High expectations for teachers and students were key to the success experienced at RES. Williams and Peterson agreed that initially for them, the district mandate to raise achievement was a performance expectation: ‘The expectations for principals were unbelievable,’ Williams said, and ‘Likewise for the teachers,’ Peterson noted. To stay focused on the high expectations, Peterson suggested the need to ‘[have] a clear focus, a vision that everyone bought into. It was utilizing your resources effectively and it was also celebrating as a whole team.’ Decker was aware of the high expectations arriving at RES: ‘It was things like high expectations. It was the typical but it was definitely having high expectation [and] having respect for each other.’ In addition, according to Decker, ‘High expectations for teachers come through when you have those [team] meetings’ when teachers held each other accountable. Robinson added the element of effectively communicating expectations: ‘The key is how those high expectations [are] communicated to the staff, the students, the community, anybody really that walks into this door, we’ll be willing to tell them about it.’ Keeping everybody in agreement helps alleviate confusion. With the understanding that student attendance is positively correlated to academic performance, dealing with attendance was a priority for Robinson. She outlined: We’ve started a process in the office where if they are late or gonna be absent, we make phone calls to everybody. If it has a red dot on it then I have to make the phone call, so the parent is gonna hear from me after three unexcused absences, every time they’re absent again they get a phone call from the principal. For students whose attendance became a serious concern, Robinson conducted home visits in addition to phone calls: ‘If we have attendance issues or things like that we do go to do home visits,’ Robinson said. This concerted effort expressed to parents and students that being in school was important in order for teaching and learning to occur. Teacher Performance Like any school organization, there are often strengths and areas of improvement for employees, which was no different at RES. Most importantly, the strength among RES teachers was their potential and willingness to learn as both Williams and Peterson observed: ‘… but it was incredible. We took ordinary people and we became extraordinary,’ Peterson said, while Williams noted, ‘We made them believe that they could do it.’ In particular, the two leaders acknowledged three teachers that were stalwarts to advancing (or possibly derailing) any reform agenda. For instance, Peterson acknowledged their contribution:

62 |


Ms. Frio was in an area where state testing was critical and, uh, and that's where a lot of the emphasis began and changes began. Ms. Roberts was a very, very strong reading teacher. And she was a lifelong learner on that campus. And Ms. Beecham, she was – I hate to use the term ‘cheerleader’ but she was one of these individuals that got the younger or the primary teachers in primary grades involved in being part of a team, of something beyond the primary level but school-wide. So those three [were] really very strong people. Williams and Peterson were aware of the great potential among the teachers that needed to be harnessed. Peterson said: I thought if they had a common research-based knowledge of things, of models of how to teach reading, models of how to teach math, models of how to engage, and they were given the opportunity to practice them in a non-threatening way … Williams and I didn’t do this to them, we just, you know, put our thumbs on it constantly, that the basis of what was there was very promising. In addition, the low turnover of teachers at RES was an invaluable asset in terms of stability for student learning and advancing the school improvement agenda. During the initial reform years, Williams and Peterson still experienced low teacher turnover: ‘… Robbins did have very low turnover [of teachers].’ Similarly, during her era, Decker appreciated the low teacher turnover: ‘We had low teacher turnover, which is excellent because that’s what you want.’ However, staff tenure and support could not be taken for granted, and at times resistance was evident. Roberts noted: Ms. Peterson and I were, I think that, I wanna say that we weren’t adversaries but I think that I was a thorn in her side. When she was ready for us to do models and she wanted us to do models I was part of the primary group that said no, we’re not going to do models. And there were more of us primary teachers than there were intermediate teachers and I think that eventually she realized okay, we’re gonna back away from that, we’re gonna build the program, it’s not gonna require something that’s gonna come from somewhere else. It’s gonna come from us. Clearly, Williams and Peterson inherited a staff with many challenges – their attitudes and skillsets were no match to the task of reform that needed to be accomplished. In fact, when Williams and Peterson first arrived at RES, the staff were quite disillusioned and there was low morale due to past leadership instability. Williams noted, ‘The staff was kind of leery because they’d been through a traumatic year, and so they were sceptical maybe I was gonna be just like the former principal.’ Also, there were teachers, according to Peterson, who were unable or unwilling to accept the demographic changes RES was experiencing: There was still this group of teachers that Williams speaks of that were still reliving the past … when Robbins was, oh, like the Mecca of students whose parents were professionals and they came with skills and they came with more knowledge and all of it.


│ 63

In addition, there were weak teachers in both classroom management and quality of instruction. Williams observed: … another issue was some weak teachers. There was one little woman that I didn't – I felt bad for the student and the family when it was her turn to get a student. But she was sweet and she wasn’t mean to the children, but she just couldn't manage the class and therefore there was little learning, chaos. So she retired and, but there were, you know, mostly strong and compassionate people but a few and we targeted them. Similarly, Peterson pointed out the varying quality of instruction: Everyone knew the areas that we were weak in the classroom … There were definitely some gaps in some classrooms. I saw that the mode of instruction varied from grade level, from classroom – I mean grade level to grade level, classroom to classroom. There wasn’t a common core of standards or things that were being built and developed. Williams and Peterson realized the variation of the quality of instruction was based on two factors. First, some teachers were unwilling to change, as Williams noted, ‘We had the naysayers who got their learning by lecture and the attitude was if it was good enough for me it’s good enough for these children.’ Second, some teachers lacked the skills needed to work with their changing student population, as Peterson observed, ‘Most teachers were very passionate about their students, they wanted their students to learn, there was still a deficit in research-based skills and models.’ While for other teachers, it was merely the lack of experience with teaching. Peterson pointed out: Williams had hired … later on, some young, uh, I hate to use the word ‘young’ because, you know, they’re no longer young, but … inexperienced graduates, you know, from college or with just a few years of experience, but in terms of it being a good thing, Robbins did have very low turnover. Williams and Peterson accomplished a lot of the initial reform work and established RES as a successful school. When Decker arrived at RES, she clearly understood and acknowledged the overall academic strengths of the school: I knew that I was coming into a [successful] campus … the first thing I needed to do was validate all of the things that they had done in the past. I was not coming in to tear up, or take away, or change, or anything. That this first year I, in my mind, I was coming in to support what they’ve been doing. Decker was quite aware that teachers were a big piece of the puzzle for the success: It was already a great school. I clearly remember walking to that school the summer that they appointed me, and I encountered one of the best teachers, you know, at that campus, and the strongest teachers, and she made a point of being there, I think, when I came in to the, to the office. And she said to me, she said, ‘I’ve heard a lot of good things about you, and we’ll see.’ That’s exactly what she said to me.

64 |


Decker’s ability to read the campus context was critical in creating her leadership vision which honored the past work and yet moved the school to the next level of ‘[performing] at commended [and] college ready’ expectations. Robinson inherited a strong and stable cohort of teachers who were quite proud of their accomplishments. Robinson recalled: I had one of the teachers, when I first came in, that told me, ‘You know, Ms. Robinson, we have always had very good results because we had to have good results. This year we have good results because we want to have good results.’ However, Robinson acknowledged a challenging reality with tenured teachers: ‘Really as a principal, if they’re tenured teachers, you can’t get rid of them, so you need to build them up and build up their confidence.’ Additionally, the three RES stalwart teachers (Frio, Roberts and Beecham) expressed their disappointment in the cadre of teachers that currently populate the staff at RES. One of them said: And I’ll be honest and I don’t want to be negative about the teachers that are coming in, but they don’t have a lot of things. They don’t have the dedication that we have that I learned from Peterson and Williams, they come in … they teach and they are ready to walk out the door at 3:30 with their purses. I don’t want to be negative but I’m telling you what I see and it’s not all the teachers though but I’ll tell you whose car is in the parking lot at 6 or 7 every night. This teacher questioned the commitment among some of her colleagues to measure to the task of what it takes to keep RES’s students performing at high levels. Response to Teacher Performance In responding to inadequate teacher performance, the principals leveraged teacher hiring and the use of data to develop teachers’ capacities. Williams and Peterson, realizing the potential in the teachers they found at RES, invested in them, and most importantly made them believe in themselves. By the time Peterson left RES, she expressed her faith in their capabilities: I had so much confidence in the teachers is, I realized that year that I was now, I was a leader leading leaders. You asked why it was sustained after we left, because the level of teacher competency and leadership acquirement was raised so much that they became astute at problem solving and analyzing data. Hiring quality teachers, those willing to hold the high expectations, became the gold standard. Due to RES’s growing reputation, the teacher candidate pool was substantial. Decker said, ‘If we had an opening we could interview 100 people, and we’d have the best coming to us … they were dying to get in.’ Due to the quality of teacher hires, Decker further noted, ‘The first five years, the teachers I hired, they’ve gone on to be principals. They’ve gone on to be leaders in their own right because they were that good.’ Similarly, Robinson hired teachers with teamwork and high expectations in mind, often asking the questions: ‘Which [candidate] is going to work well with this team?’ and ‘Which [candidate] is going to hold


│ 65

those high expectations that Robbins has?’ Frio, Roberts and Beecham acknowledged the high quality of some of their colleagues: ‘We’ve had some wonderful new teachers, we really have and they bring something to the table also where they would, I think we had people who had worked at more technology base.’ Having access to and hiring a cohort of quality teachers that believe in the vision was crucial in advancing the reform agenda. In an effort to enhance data-driven instruction, developing teachers to become effective users of data was a priority for all the principals. Initially, Williams and Peterson introduced and focused on data use literacy and efficacy for all the teachers. Peterson recalled the process of data use ‘began real slow’ but they kept pushing ‘learning how to use the data to drive instruction’ and to track student achievement. Peterson described the process this way: Well at the beginning of the year we all started with our teachers looking at the school data, right? You know, you start off that way at the very first meeting before the school year begins as professional development, and then we had the grade levels break into groups and identify those areas where there were strengths and weaknesses. And then we took it [to] the next step. The next step was to have individual teachers look at their own population, the students … in order to be able to identify the amount of time that they needed to spend on certain concepts, but at the same time we also had to, as teachers, we had to work on how to continue to, I call it, recycling. I don't know what the term is, I forgot now, spiralling. There was a methodical way of examining both formative and summative data. Frio, Roberts and Beecham attested to the significant amount of time, sometimes during school breaks and holidays, that was spent analysing data. One of these teachers noted: We would meet at [Peterson’s] house, … it was spring break sometimes, it was our off time. But we went and what made me realize with her is I have never looked at data before like the way she taught me to look at data. I didn’t really look at data until she showed me how to look at data. Also, Williams and Peterson continuously evaluated the teachers: ‘[We had] a little evaluation that we did once a week or once every two weeks that Williams and I created … putting things together to have little formative evaluations,’ Peterson said. The student and teacher data were critical in reforming RES. Decker continued the practice of examining data for student achievement and teacher growth. She recalled, ‘We were already meeting in teams, and looking at data, and making sure that the weakest link on your team was seeing the strongest link on your team on a weekly basis for planning purposes.’ Through data analysis meetings, teachers were paired to support each other to help students become successful. Teachers were expected to attend team meetings to ensure their questions were answered: ‘We are going to make sure you get your support, you get your questions answered, you understand the content, we bring out the data on kids, and all of those pieces,’ Decker said. Also, she wanted the data analysis process to be conducted in a frank, honest, and non-malicious manner:

66 |


We were very open about our data. So like if this was our data room, right here on the wall is going to be your name and your data. So you’re going to have to be bringing forth your data when you’re in meetings, and it’s not to penalize you, but it’s to say, ‘This is the 3rd grade team here, and we’re all teaching the same content, and we’re all planning together, so why are you getting 20 per cent, and you’re getting 80 per cent?’ According to Decker, this kind of approach to data analysis led to problem identification and eventually assigning the appropriate solutions: When you push your data, then we as a group collectively can attack that problem. So I’m getting 20 per cent because I don’t understand the content. Okay, we can fix that. Ah, I’m getting it because I can’t get control of my kids in my classroom. Okay, we can fix that, but we have to know what the problems are. Similarly, Robinson acknowledged her approach to data use mirrored that of Decker in many ways: One of the very specific things that we did was how Ms. Decker did data … very much data-driven instruction. So the teachers, the administrative staff, we know the data. We know pretty much where every student is and which students are gonna need interventions and where these students have concerns and strengths and all of that. Robinson continued to hold collaborative meetings for data analysis: ‘We continue to talk about the data … we have grade level meetings that I used to run but now my [Instructional Specialist] runs them but I am in attendance on those.’ All of the data analysis, she argued, was meant to improve instruction and student achievement: ‘It always goes back to the students’ needs and keeping the data for the students.’ Moreover, to build strong positive teams Robinson promoted positive behavior approaches: ‘We also have a positive behavior team where we are influencing our teachers and also our students to take the whole positive behavior approach instead of a negative behavior approach so our team is phenomenal,’ Robinson said. Also, Robinson reinforced teachers (including support staff) for their good work by recognizing and honoring them on a weekly basis: Every week, I do what’s called the Friday Reflection … I include our special award for the week. So, I take one of our staff members and they could be a teacher, custodian, just about anybody and I point out something that they did above and beyond and I put a little sign on the door. This year we’re doing ‘to infinity and beyond’. So it’s kind of Buzz Lightyear, so it’s called the Buzz Award so the astronaut that goes above and beyond and you know. Teachers appreciated the simple gesture of recognizing their dedication and hard work. In addition, Robinson noted, teachers congratulated each other: ‘I hear the teachers say, “hey, I heard you got the Buzz Award this week, congratulations.”’ This in an effort on the part of Robinson to build up the teachers because she believes ‘if they are confident teachers, they are going to be better teachers’. Similarly, Robinson engaged teachers in critical conversations about areas of growth: ‘Of course you always have those conversations with teachers that


│ 67

maybe need to bump their expectations up or need to work on certain things but really playing up their strengths is what I’m all about,’ Robinson said. District Influences As a local education agency in charge of governing and appropriating educational resources and services, the district has significant impact on how individual schools are resourced and administered. For instance, on appointment to RES, Williams and Peterson were given a mandate ‘to improve student achievement’. This mandate embodied pressure for these two administrators to perform. In addition, the district was promoting specific curricular initiatives, which school administrators were expected to follow regardless of the specific context of the individual schools. For instance, the district initiated instructional models but RES administration and teachers felt the models did not address their needs. Peterson reported, ‘… you asked if we had any difficulties at times with the district. Williams mentioned the models. The models were a big issue with us because we were not adopting [them].’ The decision not to adopt did not fare well with the district officials. Williams and Peterson both describe a confrontation with one of the assistant superintendents related to the curriculum initiative. Williams recalled: Mr. Alejandro came to the campus. He didn’t come very often and he got me up against the wall and he wanted to know, because we were using Michael Eaton and having great success according to our data, well how did I know and, blah, blah? Likewise, Peterson experienced the same resistance from district administration: ‘[Mr. Alejandro] interrogated you about it. He did that to me too.’ This kind of district imposition can hinder context-specific leadership response and innovation. To this end, Peterson noted: The concept that there’s more than one way to skin a cat is something that always resonates with me. There’s more than one path. You just have to find the one that aligns with your population and what you’re doing and gives you the result. And later on he did come around because we were the model school in this area. Despite the district’s acknowledgment of RES’s success, there were consequences experienced by Williams for questioning some of the district initiatives. She recalled: In my last year as hard as I worked, and the evaluation means something to you if you’re putting forth your best effort. I didn’t get a single acclamation, not one, and I told [Mr. Alejandro] with this evaluation if I apply for a job in another place they wouldn’t hire me … I mean, it really hurt. Another policy practice prevalent in the district was the assigning of school personnel without input from sitting administrators or teaching staff. Following Williams’s departure, Peterson was assigned an AP/CIC who was not a good match for RES, which created dissatisfaction among teachers. Peterson recalled:

68 |


I was assigned a CIC from a middle school who had no experience. She was very good as a vice principal but she didn’t have the background in curriculum instruction, and so that first year was a challenge because the staff reacted to that. Similarly, three of Decker’s APs were assigned to her without her input. Moreover, she was inundated with teacher placement without consultation, which affected instructional quality. Decker noted: Over the course of the nine years the district infiltrated me with more [teacher] placements. I didn’t have as much say in the people that were put on my campus to a certain degree. And when that happened the quality dropped, the commitment dropped, and the pushback started. However, Decker also had the opportunity of hiring her own teachers: ‘I definitely want to have when I do interviews, if I’m hiring a kindergarten teacher, the kindergarten team there with me … but in the end I make the decision,’ Decker noted. She further praised her hiring choices: ‘[The] teachers I hired, they’ve gone on to be principals. They’ve gone on to be leaders in their own right because they were that good.’ Surprisingly, however, Decker seemed to unquestionably follow district initiatives and directives. She suggested: We were not so much programs, but we were fidelity to district initiatives, so that was my mantra. If the district says we’re supposed to be doing it, then we must be doing it. We must be following the pacing guide. We must stay with what the district says because that’s where we’re getting our training from, so that’s the kind of thing. And then this whole thing about, we followed the curriculum set by the district, or programs they’ve chosen. The principal’s job is to hyper monitor to make sure it happens. The lack of pushback on some of the initiatives from the district is surprising as much of these initiatives deprived administrator autonomy. Unfortunately, when districts engage in this top-down leadership approach, it deprives principals of site-based governance and erodes the overall school climate, such as teacher dissension, as was the case during Peterson’s and Decker’s tenure as noted earlier. As much as the district was promoting certain initiatives and demanding more from principals, there were resource (funding, technology and personnel) constraints. Peterson recalled, ‘They did cut the funding for [leveraging] the salary. When I became the principal we no longer could do that salary [reallocation] because there was now a new rule that you have to have 550 students or something to quality for an AP.’ During her time, Robinson cited the lack of a substitute pool to cover classes: ‘We’ve had a critical shortage of substitutes this year. We have had a lot of Friday’s and Monday’s that we have had no substitutes so we have to divide those kids up amongst the other classrooms.’ In addition, Robinson desired additional specialists: Probably more support staff. The key position that I am missing is that CIC position and not just because I was one of them, but just because they are the ones that do the


│ 69

data analysis, they are the ones that go in and help new teachers, they are the ones – and we could really make a strong team if we had two or three people on our campus doing those things and then second would be specialists. I would say reading specialists, math specialists. Furthermore, RES was in need of technology support. Robinson pointed out, ‘If I could have more budget, we need technology, we are in dire need of more technology at Robbins.’ Although RES performed well with limited technology, Robinson highlighted the need: ‘We need technology, we need the technology here.’ These resource constraints limited the school to perform to their full potential. Response to District Constraints Williams and Peterson leveraged the new superintendent’s willingness to allow school administrators to be more innovative. For instance, when the district created the CIC positions across the district, Williams and Peterson seized the opportunity to address their campus needs by reallocating resources. Peterson reported: The second year they opened up that CIC position … we got all excited about it that … Robbins is gonna have a CIC, and that was like my dream job. We started talking about approaching the superintendent who was Ms. Lane at the time about taking one of the salaries, reallocate that money back to the district so that we could get manipulatives and guided reading materials and read-aloud materials for students, for the teachers to use with their students. So we could get manipulatives, we could have professional development come in, not just me but other good people come in and do professional development, so that we could also pay the teachers for tutoring, because we had tutoring after school. But also that we could do every nine weeks we started off with one whole day of collaborative planning and that was one of the keys that the CIC and the grade level would meet for the whole day. Once the reform work at RES showed results and RES gained the reputation as a highperforming school, administrators leveraged the academic success for site-based leadership and a level of autonomy. For instance, Peterson appreciated this sense of autonomy: ‘There were challenges with the district, [however], they left us pretty much alone.’ Robinson reiterated a similar sentiment: ‘It really depends on where your results are – your academic results are – as to how often and how much involvement you get from the district office.’ Over the years, principals negotiated with the district. For example, when the assistant principal position opened at RES, Robinson was pleasantly surprised to be allowed to choose her own AP. She noted, ‘I was kind of surprised because most of the times, the district appoints assistant principals but they asked me who I wanted and I told them, so I got to pick.’ During Robinson’s era, the district significantly retreated from having direct influence on teacher placement. Robinson reported conducting her own hiring and using teacher teams in hiring decisions:

70 |


Well, I believe in using a team approach to hire the teachers so what I try to do is, say it’s a first-grade teacher that we have a position, I’ll have the ACT and the other teachers sit in on the interview process, we kind of share the questions in asking from the protocol and then we kind of make a decision after we do all of the interviews. In addition, the district periodically moved principals to new campuses; however, Robinson described how she approached one of the assistant superintendents and advocated for not moving. Robinson suggested to the assistant superintendent: ‘I’ve started some things at Robbins that I feel I haven’t been able to complete and is that a possibility that I can put my name in there to not move to a different campus … I was able to stay at Robbins.’ However, it is worth noting, at the time of writing this paper Robinson was moved to a different campus within the district. RES’s strong reputation in the district positioned the principals as critical players in districtlevel discussions and decisions. Decker recalled being invited to contribute to the district’s future direction during a time of transition: When Dr. Durango came in and replaced Dr. Orlando, he did meet with what he called leaders of the district, and he invited me to one of those face-to-face with him. It was in the first month or so of his service with the district. This demonstrates the district’s high regard for RES and its leadership. RES administrators pioneered instructional practices and initiatives far ahead of the district. Peterson noted: Those best practices in reading, that was an initiative that we started before the district provided the professional development because I had come from that experience and I had learned that from my teaching. And then the other thing in math we had bought all these manipulatives for them so again the district began to buy manipulatives in math and provide the professional development, so it mirrored for the teachers what had been going on a couple years. [We were] kind of ahead of the game … we've been doing this. Now the district is kind of realizing this is good practice. The accrued success established RES as a model campus with a respectable reputation in the district, which afforded the administrators a level of autonomy that they leveraged to advance their vision for success.

Discussion Although calls for understanding how context affects school leaders surfaced over 20 years ago (e.g., Gronn & Ribbins 1996), limited attention has been given to this topic until recently. In noting this paucity of research, Dimmock (2005) lamented, ‘It is depressing to find so many scholars in the field who feel qualified to write about leadership while divorcing it from, and even ignoring, the specific contexts within which it is exercised’ (p. 82, emphasis added). Recently, however, research in the field of educational administration is beginning to acknowledge how societal, school, and personal contexts influence the realities of school


│ 71

leadership (Walker et al. 2012). For instance, Clarke and O’Donoghue (2016) examine school leadership in a variety of contextual settings, including urban and rural, post-conflict, politically and religiously diverse, and indigenous schools. In addition, Hallinger’s (2016) analysis identifies how various conceptualizations of school leadership theory and practice are affected by cultural contexts. Finally, professional development programs to prepare leaders to turn around low-performing schools recognize the need to identify and prioritize the contextual conditions of their schools affecting student achievement before setting school improvement goals (Duke 2014). This special issue of International Studies in Educational Administration is intended to expand our field’s understanding of context and school leadership by examining how leaders in high needs, low-performing schools deal with the internal and external contextual factors influencing student and teacher performance. Our study of Robbins Elementary School (RES) follows the story of a low-performing school and the ways in which four successive principals assessed and responded to features of the surrounding community and the school’s infrastructure, principals, teachers, and student population (Walker et al. 2012). By interviewing these four principals and teachers who have worked at the school during these leaders’ tenure, we uncover their assessment of the context at different points in time. This vantage point is unique in several ways. First, while RES was low performing when Williams and Peterson arrived, student achievement has substantially improved and been sustained, resulting in a different context for subsequent principals, Decker and Robinson. This contextual shift allows us to examine how principals’ approaches differ when school performance increases (Hallinger 2016; Hallinger & Heck 2011). Second, although some studies describe leadership practices for prolonged periods of time enacted by the same principal (e.g., Duke 2006; Jacobson 2011; Jacobson, Johnson, Ylimaki & Giles 2009), our investigation examines the practices of four different school leaders (Okilwa & Barnett 2017) over nearly 25 years. Beginning with the groundwork laid by the first two administrators (Williams and Peterson) to turn around RES’s poor academic performance, interviews reveal their and subsequent principals’ (Decker and Robinson) analysis of how the community and school-level contexts influenced students’, teachers’ and parents’ views about the school. Based on their contextual analysis, these principals took proactive measures to alter school programs and practices in order to improve student achievement, teacher performance, community engagement, and relationships with district administration. In this way, we are able to reveal how principals adapt their leadership to the constraints and opportunities in their workplace contexts (Hallinger 2016). For each level (community and school), we first examine the specific contextual factors affecting the school and then discuss the ways in which these principals sought to address the issues, concerns, or challenges arising from these factors.

72 |


Reading and Responding to the Community Context Contextual Analysis As is the case in many urban contexts (Duke 2008, 2012b; Picus et al. 2005), the RES community has a substantial number of economically-disadvantaged households in their attendance zone. Although respondents noted challenges with heightened crime in the area and many grandparent-led households, their biggest concern was the high student mobility rate (approximately 30 per cent per year), resulting in the arrival and departure of students on a seemingly day-to-day basis. Not only did mobility pose challenges for maintaining student attendance, but also required principals and their staff to interact with new families to communicate the school’s expectations and engage parents and family members in the school’s activities. Proactive Leadership Strategies These school leaders took a two-pronged approach to engage the community, one dealing with parental engagement, the other with business involvement and support. In terms of parental engagement, Williams hired a community liaison, a position that continued with subsequent leaders. This person served in several capacities. For instance, she made home visits to provide information and connect with new families as well as meeting with families with students with high absence rates. Connecting directly with parents in their home environment can be particularly important in high needs communities. Home visits by school personnel not only communicate the school truly cares about their children’s education and wellbeing, but also reinforces the need for their students to attend school (Medina et al. 2014). In some cases, the liaison and principals visited homes in the morning, offering to drive students to school if they needed transportation (Medina et al. 2014). In addition, she worked with the PTA to sponsor a variety of evening events at the school focusing on academic areas (e.g., math, science) as well as social events, such as family movie nights and mother and father nights. Finally, the liaison would cover classes for teachers who would then meet with parents to provide them with information about how to reinforce literacy and numeracy strategies at home. RES leaders also sought to make the school a safe and inviting place for parents and other family members. Because parents feel disenfranchised from schools and sceptical about expectations for their children, school leaders must make concerted efforts to convince parents in low-income communities that the school will meet their expectations (Barnett & Stevenson 2015). In some instances, parents are concerned about the types of students that will be attending the school and fear for their children’s safety since they may be exposed to violence, threats, and bad habits (Slater et al. 2014). RES’s school leaders implemented a variety of approaches for making the school safe, accessible, and open to community members. For example, they organized a number of informal meetings for parents to attend, such as coffees with the principal as well as opportunities to spend time with their children in the classroom or during lunch. In addition, school leaders established a parent volunteer


│ 73

program, allowing parents to work in classrooms, working with students, preparing materials, and organizing supplies (Epstein et al. 2002). In some cases, parents volunteered outside the classroom, such as supporting the school’s music and gardening programs. All of these strategies were intentionally designed to make parents feel welcomed and valued, making RES safe for them and their children to attend. The second approach to community engagement centered on working with business organizations to address specific school needs. Rather than viewing the community from a deficit perspective, principals and teachers located community resources that could be an asset to the school (Barnett & Stevenson 2015). RES principals and staff approached members of local businesses to support the school’s academic expectations by serving as mentors who read to students on a continual basis. A local grocery food chain and community food bank sponsored nutrition classes for parents. Financial support from business organizations was solicited to support activities the school was not able to afford, such as resources to pay for local field trips. Because of the recurring attendance problems, school leaders approached local restaurants for meal vouchers and local sports teams for free game tickets, incentives provided to students for perfect attendance.

Reading and Responding to the School Context Contextual Analysis Beginning with Williams and her successor, Peterson, two prominent issues surfaced at the school level that dominated their focus, time, and actions – low student achievement and inconsistent and underperforming teachers – contextual conditions experienced by most high needs schools (Duke 2008, 2012b). First and foremost, student achievement was quite low as measured by state assessments; school district leaders expressed grave concerns about student achievement results and low attendance rates. During this time, an increasingly vocal group of parents confronted the principal and teachers with their concerns about teaching practices and curriculum. Some parents openly questioned the curriculum, classroom materials and assignments, and teachers’ instructional practices. This turmoil occurred during a period of time when RES’s student population was changing based on the increasing number of families moving into Section 8 housing complexes. The concerns voiced by parents not only raised district officials’ concerns with RES, but also were highly stressful for the principal, who ultimately resigned for health reasons. Williams was selected by district officials to stem the tide of parental discontent, raise student achievement, and improve attendance, issues faced by many turnaround school leaders (Duke 2012b). When beginning her tenure, Williams noted teachers were sceptical of yet another principal leading the school, one who might well leave after a short period of time. Second, when arriving at RES, Williams and Peterson quickly realized some of these parental concerns were justified, observing a number of teachers were unsuccessful and/or unwilling to adjust their practices to address the changing student population. In particular, they noted

74 |


a lack of classroom management; classes where students were quickly falling behind their peers; variability in teachers’ practices across grade levels; a lack of core research-based teaching standards and practices; inefficient use of time, especially in transitions between activities; an inability to scaffold instruction; low expectations for student performance; and an unwillingness to accept new teaching practices. Proactive Leadership Strategies Although Williams and Peterson realized the task to improve student achievement and teacher performance was extremely challenging, they felt quite confident that teachers could make the necessary adjustments in their practices and attitudes. As Peterson noted, ‘It’s not because [teachers] are not capable … [or] don’t have the passion … It’s that they’re lacking a foundation in just very basic things.’ Rather than having a deficit perspective of teachers’ capabilities, they expressed an asset view of teachers’ skills and abilities (Sudsberry & KandelCisco 2013). Reflecting back on what they accomplished during their time at RES, Williams commented, ‘We made [teachers] believe they could do it’ and Peterson remarked, ‘We took ordinary [teachers] and we became extraordinary.’ In order to improve student achievement and teacher performance, these two leaders implemented a variety of strategies which have been continued and refined by subsequent principals, Decker and Robinson. Initially, Williams and Peterson created a sense of urgency for improving student learning, where everyone would become invested in learning for all students, not just those in their own classrooms, a practice found to be instrumental in turning around low-performing schools (Salmonowicz 2009). One of the early structures implemented to reinforce collective responsibility for student learning was the buddy system, where teachers relinquished their planning conference time to work with at-risk students in other classes, resulting in teachers ‘adopting’ a set of students or an entire classroom. Although the buddy system continues today, teachers also have become more involved in tutoring students after school without compensation. When principals restructure the school to establish clear and consistent procedures and protocols for teacher responsibility for student learning and provide multiple opportunities for team involvement, they develop a culture of collective sense of responsibility for student learning (Duke 2006; Gurr et al. 2014; Mulford 2007). Principals also instituted systems to address student behavior. For instance, to combat poor attendance, a communication system was developed to alert parents immediately when students were late or absent. Shortly after school begins, office staff call parents of missing students, noting they would not be counted absent if they could arrive at school by 10:00 am. When unexcused absences persisted, teachers called parents; ultimately, the principal communicated with parents if the situation did not change. In addition, a series of reward systems was implemented. One of the earliest was ‘Beagle Bucks’, which any teacher or administrator could distribute to students who demonstrated appropriate social behavior (walking in hallways, cooperating on the playground) and/or perfect attendance. Students


│ 75

cashed in Beagle Bucks for rewards, such as food, free dress, or extended recess. Public recognition of student and school performance also was evident; banners of awards RES received for honor roll students and outstanding academic achievement were displayed around the school. In this way, principals and teachers created a culture of success through rituals and rewards (Peterson 2002; Peterson & Deal 2002). Besides instituting these structural systems, concerted attention was devoted to implementing new programs to address students’ academic performance and behavior. Targeted programs focusing on literacy (balanced literacy, reading recovery), gifted and talented students, and higher-order thinking were offered. Developing these types of programs is extremely common when seeking to turnaround student performance, such as literacy development (Duke 2008; Salmonowicz 2009), interim and benchmark testing (Duke 2012b), culturally responsive teaching practices (Ylimaki et al. 2014), and Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) (Klar & Brewer 2013). One of the hallmark programs Williams and Peterson implemented was the Pentathlon instructional system to allow students to learn to work collaboratively to solve problems. In mixed-ability groups, students solved five problem-solving questions in math, writing, or reading by working collaboratively. Using Peterson’s expertise in curriculum, teachers focused on developing lesson plans devoted to thematic units. To address students’ behavioral issues, several programs have been implemented. For example, Williams and Peterson introduced the staff to the district-sponsored Capturing Kids Hearts, a program to improve students’ connections with teachers and their peers. Given the changing nature of the student population, they understood this program could provide teachers with new tools to work more effectively to reduce disciplinary problems and referrals while increasing student attendance, engagement, and academic performance. In addition, during Robinson’s tenure, RES adopted Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a program to improve ‘social, emotional and academic outcomes for all students, including students with disabilities and students from underrepresented groups’ (PBIS 2017: 1). As these structural systems and programs were introduced, principals were attempting to change teachers’ expectations and instructional practices. Two important ways to build collective teacher capacity and ownership in improving student performance have been utilized throughout the tenure of the four RES principals. First, these two leaders strongly believed student performance data should inform instructional practice (Okilwa & Barnett 2017). Therefore, early in their tenure, they provided opportunities for teachers to examine data to identify particular areas of weakness at the classroom and school levels. Often, grade level teams examined student performance data, noting strengths and areas for growth. Once student learning deficiencies were identified, teachers created quarterly goals and developed ‘roadmaps’ aimed at identifying the skills and concepts needing attention. Then at the end of each quarter, they assessed student performance, noting areas of growth. In this way, principals were providing ‘quick wins’ for teachers to see that they could affect student performance, a key strategy in turnaround schools (Herman et al. 2008). To keep teachers

76 |


focused on student growth, they posted bulletin boards displaying students who were exemplary, met expectations, and showed improvement. Second, as teacher performance and capacity increased, subsequent principals (Decker and Robinson) involved teachers in hiring new staff. As RES’s reputation grew, as many as 100 teachers would apply for an opening at the school. Turnaround schools that sustain success not only are deliberate about hiring teachers who share the same vision and expectations for the school, but also support new teachers by matching them with veteran teachers (Duke 2012a). RES principals realized the power of involving teachers in interviewing new teacher candidates and obtaining their input when making final decisions. Teachers were particularly interested in determining if candidates would work well with existing team members, were committed to high expectations, and were receptive to trying new ideas. By allowing teachers to be involved in the hiring process, principals displayed trust in their ability to determine their future colleagues. They were searching for individuals committed to ‘The Robbins Way’ practices, that is, engaging in the buddy system for student support, implementing behavior management programs, holding high expectations for student performance, and using student performance data to inform instructional practices (Okilwa & Barnett 2017). District Relationships Besides addressing contextual issues at the school level, all four of these school leaders worked with district leaders and support staff, constantly communicating the school’s needs and seeking resources for school improvement. As is the case in most urban school settings, RES lacked many human and financial resources needed to improve student achievement and strengthen teacher capacities (Barnett & Stevenson 2015; Duke 2012b). However, knowing they were hired to turn around school performance, Williams and Peterson asserted themselves by seeking district funds to send teachers to reading, math, and behavior management workshops. As the student achievement and teacher performance began to improve, subsequent leaders embraced district initiatives, especially programs and practices they believed would enhance student and teacher performance. Incorporating content, learning, and social objectives (COLOSO) in lesson planning, especially for working with English Language Learners during Robinson’s tenure, is a particularly good illustration of using district resources to meet the campus’ needs. In addition to staff development and program implementation, principals solicited district personnel with expertise in particular content areas. For instance, district math and reading specialist teams taught classes with new RES teachers to support their use of guided reading and balanced literacy. In addition, behavior specialists regularly visited classrooms and worked individually with students with special learning needs. These are excellent examples of principals being ‘resource providers’, a hallmark of effective instructional leadership (Smith & Andrews 1989). However, these leaders did not always blindly follow district mandates and programs. In fact, they were politically astute, understanding the need to work within district guidelines and to gain the confidence of district leaders (Barnett & Stevenson 2015). Their political


│ 77

prowess was evident by negotiating with the district when they felt the school would benefit from different approaches than those being pushed by the district. For instance, very early in Williams’s tenure, she convinced the superintendent that the instructional design model they had started was more suitable for meeting their students’ needs than the new design model promoted by the district. In addition, because Peterson was willing to take the dual role of assistant principal and curriculum instructional specialist, the district allowed the school to keep the unspent salary for the specialist position, which allowed the school to purchase much-needed supplies for math manipulatives and guided reading as well as provide additional professional development for teachers. As RES’s reputation improved across the district and they gained the confidence of school officials (Gurr et al. 2014), school leaders were able to continue negotiating with the district, such as obtaining funds for field trip transportation if the school could raise funds for other associated costs; selecting their own assistant principal, rather than employing the district selected candidate; and allowing Robinson to remain in the position when originally asked to move to another campus.

Conclusion This study of RES provides a unique perspective of a school that initially needed to turn around low student achievement and has maintained those improvements for over 20 years. Although most studies of turnaround schools capture events for a year or two (for exceptions, see Duke 2012a; Jacobson 2011), our study followed RES leaders for over two decades. Capturing the perceptions of the four school leaders and several teachers who worked at the school during this timeframe allows us to examine the ebb and flow of the school’s efforts to maintain high student performance over time (Okilwa & Barnett 2017). Therefore, our analysis reveals how community and school contextual factors may change and remain constant during the transformation of a low-performing to a higher-performing school (Hallinger 2016). This perspective provides a contrasting view of school turnaround, which leads to several conclusions. First, some of the strategies and approaches used by RES’s initial leaders (Williams and Peterson) were quite different from what is commonly reported in the school turnaround literature. For instance, most studies indicate school leaders begin by taking an authoritarian, direct approach to reform. Because these leaders have been mandated to make rapid changes, they feel the pressure to achieve ‘quick and dramatic’ results (Duke 2012b: 9). These leaders challenge the status quo, demand teachers embrace the school’s new direction, and force recalcitrant teachers to leave the school (Hollar 2004). However, as positive results occur, school leaders tend to relinquish tight control, becoming more democratic and collaborative with their staff (Ylimaki et al. 2014). A quite different strategy was taken by Williams and Peterson. Although they clearly were concerned about student achievement and attendance as well as underperforming teachers, they took a more collaborative approach to raising awareness and implementing programs.

78 |


Several factors appear to have influenced their strategy for improvement. Peterson had a strong curriculum background and understood how to analyse student performance data to reveal strengths and areas of growth. These analyses were shared with teachers in a collegial fashion, allowing teachers to discover where there were gaps in students’ skills and understanding. Williams, on the other hand, possessed strong people skills and an infectious sense of humor. She was able to connect with and develop relationships with teachers to ease their concerns about the state of affairs at the school. Combining their strengths in working with data and with people, Williams and Peterson helped teachers see the value of working collectively to improve student achievement by implementing the buddy system, after school tutoring, and teacher-led committees, strategies that tend to be utilized by turnaround leaders must later in the process (Duke 2008, 2012a, 2012b; Halford 1996). Finally, they built trust with teachers by modeling hard work by working late hours and on weekends. This resulted in teachers being willing to give their personal time during holiday breaks to meet and plan instructional strategies. Second, as student and teacher performance improved, the contextual landscape for subsequent principals (Decker and Robinson) changed. Upon beginning the job, both acknowledged the pressure they felt to maintain the school’s reputation in the district and community. They realized many of the programs and practices initiated by Williams and Petersen were effective, and continued or refined them, similar to what has been found with other turnaround school leaders (Duke 2012a; Jacobson 2011; Jacobson et al. 2009). Besides involving teachers in hiring new staff, they also maintained teachers’ collective efforts to improve student achievement, opportunities for shared leadership, data analysis strategies, and high expectations, which they referred to as ‘The Robbins Way’ (Okilwa & Barnett 2017). There were, however, other contextual issues that did not change during Decker and Robinson’s tenure, the most prominent of which was student mobility and attendance. Because RES’s community had many low-income families and high mobility, these principals needed to continually meet with new parents to clarify the school’s expectations and to make them feel welcomed.

Implications for Practice This study reveals that each of the four RES principals was adroit at assessing the strengths and challenges of the existing community and school context. Furthermore, they did not shy aware from these challenges and saw them as opportunities for growth. In this sense, they exhibited many of the problem-solving characteristics of expert principals. For instance, rather than feeling overwhelmed with challenges and focusing on their own personal concerns, these principals understood difficult problems can be resolved with careful thinking and planning and how improving program quality and teacher capacity can affect student performance (Lazaridou 2006; Leithwood & Steinbach 1992). Therefore, these findings have implications for leadership development and practice.


│ 79

Aspiring and practicing school leaders can engage in learning activities aimed at helping them to better assess contextual issues affecting their school settings, especially those with chronic low student performance. Programs exist that provide important guidelines and instructional practices aimed at assisting leaders in understanding the underlying factors affecting student and teacher performance. For instance, the Florida Turnaround Leaders Program (FTLP) uses many of the guiding principles and instructional approaches developed by the University of Virginia’s School Turnaround Program (UVASTP n.d.). In particular, the FTLP is designed to assist turnaround leaders to understand ‘the unique problems [of lowperforming schools] based on their history, community context, and student body’ (Duke 2014: 81). Using problem-based and situated learning activities, participants not only learn how to collect and analyse data to reveal the underlying causes of students’ low academic performance, but also how to assess student progress and program implementation and effectiveness. Besides knowledge acquisition, participants practice and apply their learning through field-based learning activities in low-performing schools, as members of four-person teams over a six-month period and individually during a semester-long internship placement. Another promising approach for developing the contextual acuity of school leaders is to improve their problem-solving expertise. Leithwood and Steinbach’s (1992) approach for developing expertise in problem solving would be particularly relevant. Their model provides a variety of instructional strategies, such as introducing models of expert problem solving, applying these models to different types of problems, introducing increasingly complex task demands, encouraging group problem solving, and providing performance feedback to groups and individuals. The intent of improving aspiring and practicing school leaders’ problem-solving capacities is to enhance their ability to exhibit the characteristics of expert problem-solving principals, leaders who are not intimidated by difficult and challenging problems, are concerned with programs affecting all students’ learning, are able to manage difficult problems through careful analysis and planning, are committed to providing parents with relevant information, and remain calm and confident when encountering problems. Principals responsible for turning around and maintaining student performance must devote considerable time and attention to this effort. As a result, they can feel the physical and emotional stress of leading schools in these high need contexts (Ginsberg 2008). If school districts want to keep school leaders in these schools, they need to provide adequate support and guidance. These supports may include aligning resources; conducting regular school visits to provide instructional support and coaching; and recruiting, hiring, and retaining highly effective teachers (Robinson & Rhim 2016). Also, districts need to create forums for turnaround school leaders to share their successes, frustrations, opportunities, and future goals. These support structures are intended to help leaders understand they are not alone in their efforts to turnaround and maintain student performance.

80 |


Implications for Research Several fruitful avenues for expanding future research on principals’ abilities to assess and manage context exist. For instance, the contextual variability of schools can be expanded by purposely sampling: (a) communities that remain demographically stable versus those that are racially and ethnically shifting; (b) communities with different income levels; (c) districts where student population is growing, stagnating, or declining; (d) schools at different levels (e.g., middle, secondary, K-12); and (e) schools with little or substantial teacher turnover. In addition, Hallinger (2016) recommends several additional lines of research designed to further our understanding of leadership in various contexts. Given the paucity of research in this area, he suggests conducting mixed-method studies aimed at building theory, rather than only being descriptive cases studies; cross-national studies; and systematic reviews of existing data bases, such as empirical studies of rural and urban school contexts. If context actually matters in schools, as has been cogently argued in the literature (e.g., Clarke & O’Donoghue 2016; Gronn & Ribbins 1996; Hallinger 2016; Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach 1999; Walker et al. 2012), then effective school leaders must be able to read the nuances of these contexts to provide contextually-appropriate responses. Because the macro and micro contexts of schools are constantly in flux, even experienced and expert school leaders must remain vigilant about being contextually observant and responsive. Therefore, to help leaders of all experience levels become more contextually savvy, not only must research provide additional knowledge about this increasingly important role, but this knowledge must also be made accessible for those who aspire to school leadership as well as those who are currently serving in these roles. This investigation reveals how successive school principals in a low-performing school observed, evaluated, and responded to the community and school context; however, this is but one small example of the array of contexts school leaders experience. This special volume provides many other rich illustrations of the contextual realities school leaders experience. As more of these types of studies are conducted and synthesized, we may well be able to advance the theory and practice of contextually-relevant leadership, similar to what has been developed for culturally-relevant teaching (Gay 2010; Ladson-Billings 1995) and culturally-relevant leadership (Fraise & Brooks 2015; Horsford, Grosland & Gunn 2011).

References Ahram, R., Stembridge, A., Fergus, E., & Noguera, P. (2011). Framing Urban School Challenges: The problems to examine when implementing response to intervention. RTI Action Network. Washington, DC: National Center for Learning Disabilities. American Psychological Association. (2010). Resilience and Recovery after War: Refugee children and families in the United States. Author: Washington, D.C. Angelle, P. S. (Ed.) (2017). A Global Perspective of Social Justice Leadership for School Principals. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.


│ 81

Arar, K. (2014). Principals’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Teacher Evaluation and their Implications in Arab Schools in Israel. In A. J. Bowers, A. R. Shoho & B. G. Barnett (Eds.), Using Data in Schools to Inform Leadership and Decision Making (pp. 181-203). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Barnett, B., & Stevenson, H. (2015). International Perspectives in Urban Educational Leadership: Social justice leadership and high-need schools. In M. A. Khalifa, C. Grant-Overton & N. W. Arnold (Eds.), Handbook of Urban School Leadership (pp. 518-531). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Barnett, B. G., & Stevenson, H. (2016). Leading High Poverty Urban Schools. In S. Clarke & T. O’Donoghue (Eds.), School Leadership in Diverse Contexts (pp. 23-42). New York, NY: Routledge. Berliner, D. C. (2009). Poverty and Potential: Out-of-school factors and school success. Boulder, CO and Tempe, AZ: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit (retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-andpotential). Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, D. C., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. V. (1982). The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34-64. Bryant, M., Cheng, A., & Notman, R. (Eds.) (2014). Exploring high need and social justice leadership in schools around the globe. Management in Education, 28(3), 77-119. Chenoweth, K., & Theokas, C. (2013). How high-poverty schools are getting it done. Educational Leadership, 70(7), 56-59. Chung, D. (2005). Analysis of Urban Schools (retrieved from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/chung.356/ urban_education). Chung, C., & Ngan, M. Y. (2002). From ‘rooftop’ to ‘millennium’: The development of primary schools in Hong Kong since 1945. New Horizons in Education, 46, 24-32. Clarke, S., & O’Donoghue, T. (2016). (Eds.). School Leadership in Diverse Contexts. New York, NY: Routledge. Day, C., & Leithwood, K. (2007). Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change. An international perspective. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Deming, W. E. (2000). The New Economics for Industry, Government, and Education (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dimmock, C. (2005). The leadership of multi-ethnic schools: What we know and don’t know about values-driven leadership. Education Research and Perspectives, 22(2), 80-86. Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2005). Educational Leadership: Culture and diversity. London, UK: Sage Publications. Duke, D. L. (2006). Keys to sustaining successful school turnaround. ERS Spectrum, 24(4), 21-25. Duke, D. L. (2008). The Little School System that Could: Transforming a city school district. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Duke, D. L. (2012a). ‘Raising Test Scores Was the Easy Part’: A case study of the third year of school turnaround. Presentation at the annual convention of the University Council for Educational Administration, Denver, CO. Duke, D. L. (2012b). Tinkering and turnarounds: Understanding the contemporary campaign to improve low-performing schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 17, 9-24. Duke, D. L. (2014). A bold approach to developing leaders for low-performing schools. Management in Education, 28(3), 80-85. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., & Voohis, F. L. (2002). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your handbook for action (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

82 |


Fraise, N. J., & Brooks, J. S. (2015). Toward a theory of culturally relevant leadership for schoolcommunity culture. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(1), 6-21. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Ginsberg, R. (2008). Being the boss is hard: The emotional side of being in charge. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(4), 292-297. Gordon, E. W., & Armous-Thomas, E. (1992). Urban Education. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research (6th ed.) (pp. 1459-1470). New York: Macmillan. Gronn, P., & Ribbins, P. (1996). Leaders in context: Postpositivist approaches to understanding school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(3), 452-473. Gunter, H. M. (2011). The State and Education Policy: The academies programme. London, UK: Continuum. Gunter, H. M., & Fitzgerald, T. (2013). New public management and the modernisation of education systems 1. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 45(3), 213-219. Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., Clarke, S., & Wildy, H. (2014). High-need schools in Australia: The leadership of two principals. Management in Education, 28(3), 86-90. Haberman, M. (n.d.). Urban Education - Students and Structure, Special Challenges, Characteristics of Successful Urban Programmes (retrieved from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2524/UrbanEducation.html). Halford, J. M. (1996, summer). Policies of promise. ASCD Information Brief, 5, 1-6. Hallinger, P. (2016). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1(20), 1-20. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Exploring the journey of school improvement: Classifying and analysing patterns of change in school improvement processes and learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(1), 1-27. Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., & Redding, S. (2008). Turning Around Chronically Low-performing Schools. Washington. DC: Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Higham, R., Hopkins, D., & Mathews, P. (2009). System Leadership in Practice. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill. Hollar, C. (2004). The principal as CEO. Principal, 84(1), 42-44. Horsford, S. D., Grosland, T., & Gunn, K. M. (2011). Pedagogy of the personal and professional: Toward a framework for culturally relevant leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 21(4), 582-606. International School Leadership Development Network. (n.d.) A Research Collaboration between UCEA and BELMAS (retrieved from http://isldn.weebly.com/). Jacob, B. A. (2007). The challenge of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. The Future of Children, 17(1), 129-153. Jacobson, S. (2011). Leadership effects on student achievement and sustained school success. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 33-44. Jacobson, S. L., Johnson, L., Ylimaki, R., & Giles, C. (2009). Sustaining success in an American school: A case for governance change. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(6), 753-764. Klar, H. W., & Brewer, C. A. (2013). Successful leadership in high-needs schools: An examination of core leadership practices enacted in challenging contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(5), 768-808. Klar, H. W., & Brewer, C. A. (2014). Successful leadership in a rural, high-poverty school: The case of County Line Middle School. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(4), 422-445.


│ 83

Kowal, J., & Hassel, E. A. (2011). Importing Leaders for School Turnarounds: Lessons and opportunities. Charlottesville: University of Virginia’s Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education (retrieved from http://www.nysed.gov/common/nysed/files/principal-project-file-47-importing-leaders-for-schoolturnarounds.pdf). Kwan, P. (2009). The vice-principal experience as a preparation for the principalship. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(2), 191-205. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally-relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. Lazaridou, A. (2006). How effective principals think while solving problems. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 10(15), 1-17. Lee, M., & Hallinger, P. (2012). National contexts influencing principals’ time use and allocation: Economic development, societal culture, and educational system. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 461-482. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing Leadership for Changing Times. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1992). Improving the problem-solving expertise of school administrators: Theory and practice. Education and Urban Society, 24(3), 317-345. Leithwood, K. (in press). The Ontario Leadership Framework: Successful leadership practices and personal leadership resources. In K. Leithwood, J. Sun & K. Pollock (Eds.), How School Leadership Influences Student Learning: The four paths (pages to be confirmed). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27-42. Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Learning from Leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation. McClafferty, K. A., Torres, C. A., & Mitchell, T. R. (2000). Challenges of Urban Education: Sociological perspectives for the next century. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. McLester, S. (2011). Turnaround principals. District Administration (May edition) (retrieved from https://www.districtadministration.com/article/turnaround-principals). Medina, V., Martinez, G., Murakami, E. T., Rodriguez, M., & Hernandez, F. (2014). Principals’ perceptions from within: Leadership in high-need schools in the USA. Management in Education, 28(3), 91-96. Mendels, P. (2012). The effective principal. Journal of Staff Development, 33(1), 54-58. Miller, A. (2013). Principal turnover and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 36, 60-72. Mulford, B. (2007). Successful School Principalship in Tasmania. In C. Day & K. Leithwood (Eds.), Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change: An international perspective (pp. 17-38). New York, NY: Springer. National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Urban Schools: The challenge of location and poverty. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Characteristics of Schools, Districts, Teachers, Principals, and School Libraries in the United States, 2003-04, Schools and Staffing Report. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. O’Conner, C., & Fernandez, S. D. (2006). Race, class, and disproportionality: Reevaluating the relationship between poverty and school education placement. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 6-11.

84 |


Okilwa, N. S., & Barnett, B. (2017). Sustaining school improvement in a high-need school: Comparative analysis of Robbins Elementary School from 1993 to 2015. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(3), 297315. Pan, H. W. (2012). Instructional Leadership in East Asian Schools. Presentation at the Asia Pacific Centre for Leadership and Change Asia Leadership Roundtable, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Peterson, K. D. (2002). Positive or negative. Journal of Staff Development, 23(2), 10-15. Peterson, K. D., & Deal, T. E. (2002). Shaping School Culture Fieldbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Picus, L. O., Marion, S. F., Calvo, N., & Glenn, W. J. (2005). Understanding the relationship between student achievement and the quality of educational facilities: Evidence from Wyoming. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 71-95. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. (2017). OSEP Technical Assistance Center (retrieved from pbis.org). Qian, H. (2013). ‘Ordinary’ Schools in Shanghai: How principals make a difference. Presentation at the annual conference of the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society, Edinburgh, Scotland. Richardson, J. W., & Sauers, N. J. (2014). Social justice in India: Perspectives from school leaders in diverse contexts. Management in Education, 28(3), 106-109. Rincones, R. (2012). International Perspectives on ‘High Need Schools’: Implications for leadership preparation and development. Presentation at the annual convention of the University Council for Educational Administration, Denver, CO. Robinson, W., & Rhim, L. M. (2016). Technical Brief 1: Creating organizational conditions for success. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia (retrieved from http://www.darden.virginia.edu/uploaded Files/Darden_Web/Content/Faculty_Research/Research_Centers_and_Initiatives/Darden_Curry_PLE/Sc hool_Turnaround/CoCreating_Org_Conditions_for_Success_160720.pdf). Ronfeldt, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). How Teacher Turnover Harms Student Achievement. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Saldaña, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications. Salmonowicz, M. (2009). Meeting the challenge of school turnaround. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(3), 19-24. Sarra, C. (2012). Good Morning, Mr Sarra. St Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press. Sharvashidze, N., & Bryant, M. (2014). A high-need Azeri school: A Georgian perspective. Management in Education, 28(3), 97-100. Slater, C., Potter, I., Torres, N., & Briceno, F. (2014). Understanding social justice leadership: An international exploration of the perspectives of two leaders in Costa Rica and England. Management in Education, 28(3), 110-115. Smith, W. F., & Andrews, R. L. (1989). Instructional Leadership: How principals make a difference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sudsberry, M., & Kandel-Cisco, B. (2013). Transformative Leadership: An asset-based approach to leadership for diverse schools and learners (retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/coe_ papers/90). Sweeting, A. (1995). Educational policy in a time of transition: The case of Hong Kong. Research Papers in Education, 10(1), 101-129. Szeto, E. (2014). From recipient to contributor: The story of a social justice leader in a Hong Kong primary school. Management in Education, 28(3), 116-119.


│ 85

The New Teacher Project. (2006). Improved Principal Hiring: The New Teacher Project’s findings and recommendations for urban schools. Brooklyn, NY: Author. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2016). Forced Displacement in 2016 (retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/5943e8a34). University of Virginia School Turnaround Program (n.d.). Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education (retrieved from http://www.darden.virginia.edu/darden-curry-ple/turnaround/). U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). The Hispanic Population: 2010 (retrieved from http://www.census.gov/ prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf). Waits, M. J., Campbell, H. E., Gau, R., Jacobs, E., Rex, T., & Hess, R. K. (2006). Why Some Schools with Latino Children Beat the Odds… and Others Don’t. Tempe, AZ: Morrison Institute for Public Policy and Phoenix, AZ: Center for the Future of Arizona. Walker, A. (2004). Constitution and culture: Exploring the deep leadership structures of Hong Kong schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25(1), 75-94. Walker, A., Hu, R., & Qian, H. Y. (2012). Principal leadership in China: An initial review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 369-399. World Health Organization. (2014). Urban Population Growth (retrieved http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/).

from

Ylimaki, R. M., Brunderman, L., Bennett, J. V., & Dugan, T. (2014). Developing Arizona turnaround leaders to build high-capacity schools in the midst of accountability pressures and changing demographics. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13(1), 28-60. Ylimaki, R. M., & Jacobson, S. L. (2011) (Eds.). US and Cross-National Policies, Practices, and Preparation. New York, NY: Springer Publishing. Ylimaki, R. M., Jacobson, S. L., & Drysdale, L. (2007). Making a difference in challenging, high-poverty schools: Successful principals in the USA, England, and Australia. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(4), 361-381.

Author Details Nathern S. Okilwa University of Texas at San Antonio Email: [email protected] Bruce G. Barnett University of Texas at San Antonio Email: [email protected]

86 |


Leadership in Early Childhood Education: Implications for Parental Involvement and Student Success from New Zealand Stephen Jacobson and Ross Notman

Abstract: This paper focuses on findings about leadership practices that enhanced parental involvement and student success in three quality early childhood education (ECE) centers serving diverse, high needs communities in New Zealand (NZ). The findings are drawn from a larger study that examined core leadership practices in NZ ECE settings (Notman & Jacobson 2018). Interviews with leaders, teachers and parents from that study indicated that the centers had developed strong, nurturing relationships with their students’ parents. Creating these positive school/family relationships was central to the work of the ECE leaders, who believed that by increasing parental involvement they could help these economically disadvantaged families repair gaps that might impede a youngster’s school success. For this part of the study we focused exclusively on the interview responses of parents and our findings indicate that the leaders’ efforts at engaging parents were especially important in helping young parents improve their parenting skills. We argue that ECE leadership that supports parental involvement and out-of-school parenting skills complements in-school efforts, and together they have the potential to improve children’s life chances. Keywords: Leadership in early childhood education (ECE), parental involvement and school success, ECE in New Zealand (NZ)

Introduction There is growing interest in nations around the world about the utility of quality early childhood education (ECE) for improving the subsequent school and career success of children. ECE is seen as the most economically efficient approach to providing children such non-cognitive abilities as motivation, trustworthiness, self-discipline, perseverance, and dependability; skills that are essential for success later in life (Heckman & Krueger 2005; Schweinhart et al. 2005). This efficiency argument contends that investments in ECE produce


│ 87

better rates of economic return than similar investments at the primary, secondary or tertiary levels. In bottom line terms, every dollar invested in ECE produces a societal return of more than $16, and these returns are even greater for children living in poverty (Reardon 2011). The underlying assumption of this body of evidence is that differences in long-term outcomes are a direct consequence of children’s in-school experiences. Yet there is also a compelling body of research going back to the Coleman (1966) study indicating that the majority of the variance in student performance can be accounted for by out-of-school family background factors such as parental wealth and education. Therefore, whilst the efficiency perspective enables policy makers to calculate costs directly associated with ECE interventions, there is also an emerging body of literature that highlights important, indirect and less easily quantifiable effects of school, family and community partnerships (Epstein 2011). If educational leaders can leverage these partnerships, it is argued they can change the educational culture of a child’s home and thus potentially increase subsequent student success (Leithwood & Patrician 2017). By creating strong family/school relationships, ECE leaders seek to engage greater parental involvement in an effort to complement their programs’ in-school efforts. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine the practices of three ECE leaders engaged in increasing parental involvement at centers serving diverse, high needs communities in New Zealand (NZ). Based on the responses of the parents they worked with, we looked specifically at the efforts of these ECE leaders to build trust and community, engage parental involvement, and how they actually helped parents improve at parenting.

Literature Review The value of quality ECE programs, especially those serving children from economically disadvantaged families, has gained considerable support, particularly in the United States of America (USA), as a result of findings from the Perry Pre-school study (Schweinhart et al. 2005). This longitudinal study followed 123 African-American children from high poverty families in Michigan from 1962 until 1967. The youngsters, ages 3-4, were randomly divided into one of two groups, one that received a quality ECE program or a second comparison group that received no preschool. Forty years later, 97 per cent of the study’s still living participants were interviewed about their educational, social service, and criminal records. It turns out that those who received a quality ECE had higher lifetime earnings, were more likely to hold a job, had committed fewer crimes, and were more likely to have graduated from high school than those who did not. Specifically, more youngsters who received quality ECE graduated from high school than those who didn’t (65% vs. 45%), especially girls (84% vs. 32%); fewer girls who received ECE required treatment for mental impairment (8% vs. 36%) or had to repeat a grade (21% vs. 41%); and, on average, those who received quality ECE outperformed the non-program group on various intellectual and language tests during their early childhood years, on school achievement tests between ages 9 and 14, and on literacy

88 |


tests at ages 19 and 27. In terms of subsequent economic status, more of those who received quality ECE were employed at age 40 (76% vs. 62%); had median annual earnings more than $5,000 higher than the non-program group ($20,800 vs. $15,300); and more often owned their own homes and had a savings account (76% vs. 50%). With regard to criminal history, those who received ECE had significantly fewer arrests (36% vs. 55% arrested five times or more); and significantly fewer arrests for violent crimes (32% vs. 48%), property crimes (36% vs. 58%), or drug crimes (14% vs. 34%). Although agreement about the magnitude and sustainability of student ECE gains is not universal (Lipsey, Weiland, Yoshikawa, Wilson & Hofer 2015), it is hard to imagine there being no benefits accruing to a child who experiences a quality ECE as compared to one who has not. But what accounts for quality leadership in ECE has drawn little research attention (Bush 2013) with the possible exception of Thornton’s work in NZ (Thornton 2010, 2011; Thornton & Wansbrough 2012; Thornton, Wansbrough, Clarkin-Phillips, Aitken, & Tamiti 2009). To that end, Notman and Jacobson (2018) studied ECE leadership in NZ, using as their conceptual framework three core practices deemed necessary, but insufficient, for successful school leadership: (1) setting direction; (2) developing people; and (3) redesigning the organization (Leithwood & Riehl 2005). Notman and Jacobson’s (2018) findings revealed how leaders worked with parents to create quality ECE experiences in diverse, high needs settings. At three ECE centers, the leaders studied manifested their core practice of ‘setting direction’ by cultivating highly child-centered environments. They explicitly refrained from allowing anyone to engage in deficit thinking based on stereotypes of ethnic and/or community disadvantage. They also worked hard at ‘developing people’ by building strong, trusting relationships to support parents/caregivers’ material and emotional needs and those of their children. Finally, in their efforts to deliver quality service, these ECE leaders were constantly ‘redesigning the organization’, often through creative uses of available time, to build levels of cooperation and trust necessary to meet the needs of children and their families (Notman & Jacobson 2018). The resulting school/family relationships revealed the most noteworthy finding of the study, that is, the extent to which these ECE leaders were helping young parents learn how to parent, for example, helping them deal with challenging childhood behaviors such as anxiety, tantrums and/or physical aggression. What the long-term effects these improved parenting experiences will have on their children’s future success is still a matter of conjecture. However, we felt it was worthy of more careful consideration if one believes that leaders and teachers can have a positive impact on out-of-school factors such as parenting skills, which can then be used after-hours to complement their center’s in-school efforts to produce beneficial outcomes for youngsters in high needs communities both in the short and long term (Jacobson 2011). Support for this position can be found in Leithwood, Sun and Pollock (2017) who report research about the extent to which parental involvement contributes to student academic achievement, noting that family participation is twice as predictive of student success as is family socio-economic status (Bonci, Mottram, McCoy & Cole 2011) and that programs that


│ 89

encourage such family engagement can have effects as much as ten times greater than other relevant factors (Wahlberg 1981). Leithwood et al. (2017) conclude that parents supporting their youngsters’ learning at home has a greater impact than supporting activities in school and that ‘principles of mutual respect and trust are foundational to establishing partnerships’ (p. 308). In order to create such relationships with parents, these authors recommend that school leaders create a welcoming environment, initiate the process of building relationships with parents, have teachers that believe in parents as partners in their children’s learning, involve parents in decisions that affect their child, provide strategies and resources for parents to support their children’s learning, and use frequent and various communication methods. Epstein (2011) distinguishes between school-like families and family-like schools, noting that the latter tend to ‘relax and de-standard their rules, vary the students’ roles, and alter the reward system to be more responsive to the student and to be more like a family’ (p. 36). This is in contrast to a school-like family, wherein parents, ‘…know how to help their children in schoolwork and take appropriate opportunities to do so’ (p. 36). But Leithwood and Patrician (2017) note that high needs parents and families are far less likely than well educated, affluent parents to emphasize their child’s place within the school status hierarchy typical of the school-like family. Therefore, to succeed, students whose parents are confronting socio-economic challenges are in far greater need of attending family-like schools, wherein the overlap between the school and the family emphasizes familial relationships constructed within the school. Against this backdrop, there are also parents facing obstacles that may preclude such relationships unless leaders are deliberate in their efforts to bring them to fruition. Examples of such obstacles include single parent families, parents with limited formal education, families living below the poverty line with unstable housing accommodations and/or limited time for engagement with their children (Leithwood & Patrician 2017). In fact, many of these interrelated challenges are faced by new immigrants and displaced indigenous peoples cut off from their traditional familial support networks. Social disruptions, whether caused by economic factors such as job loss or relocation, or more catastrophic upheavals such as war, famine and natural disaster have wreaked havoc on the composition of many extended families in NZ and elsewhere. The magnitude of this global problem cannot be overstated and using data from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (2013), Goddard (2015) reports that the number of international immigrants grew 33 per cent from 175 million worldwide in 2000 to 232 million in 2013, which is greater than the entire population of Brazil, the world’s fifth most populous nation. One major consequence of these demographic movements is a disruption in traditional childrearing practices that have a direct impact on children of ECE age. For example, an increasing number of young, first-time parents are now having to work and parent without the intergenerational wisdom and support of an extended family that they would have had in the past. For many parents, it is the child’s teachers teaching them how to raise their child; this connection may be the ‘make or break’ factor in a child’s future opportunities for success. As Jeynes (2017: 324) concludes:

90 |


When parents are both motivated and mobilized to become more active in their children’s education, they can make a profound difference in their children’s success at school. When school leaders identify features of parenting that matter and work to develop those features with their parent communities, the impact is likely to be as significant as most improvement efforts focused on the school organization itself.

Conceptual Framework, Methods and Research Objectives The conceptual framework used for the larger study was based on Leithwood and Riehl’s (2005) comprehensive review of empirical research conducted on school leadership, which identified three core practices deemed necessary, but insufficient, for successful school leadership: (1) setting direction; (2) developing people; and (3) redesigning the organization. This same framework undergirds the work of the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) and that of the High Needs Schools (HNS) group of the International School Leadership Development Network (ISLDN) project. Our study also used the case study methodology and semi-structured interview protocol developed initially for the ISSPP (Jacobson & Day 2007) and subsequently refined by the ISLDN. Three ECE centers were selected for study based on the fact that they served diverse, high needs socio-economic communities and were deemed by NZ’s Education Review Office (ERO) to be a ‘well-placed’ service. The well-placed designation is the third best of four scores a center can receive relative to its ability to promote and sustain positive learning outcomes for children. Interviews were conducted with each center’s leader, teachers and parents. In addition, secondary data were obtained from government and school documents and ethnographic notes taken during the site visits. Two sites serve students primarily from culturally diverse and high needs communities, while the third serves a diverse tertiary student body, where the associated level of economic need is not as great as in the other two. While this study was not positioned to report the long-term effects on children of quality ECE as per the Perry Pre-school study, our objective was instead to fill in some of the blanks in the research literature on both school leadership in early childhood settings, particularly those serving high needs communities and the role of parental involvement in student success. Whilst recognizing that the small sample size of the study limits the robustness and generalizability of the findings, given the dearth of research about ECE leadership in general and its impact on parental involvement more specifically, the study represents an initial step in filling this gap in the literature. Further, it opens up a broader conversation about how parental involvement can benefit the parenting skills of parents of ECE-age children.

The ECE Context in New Zealand NZ has a long history of subsidizing ECE for its Nation’s families regardless of their income (May 2007). Centers tend to be teacher and/or parent led programs (Thornton 2011) that operate with considerable autonomy given the highly decentralized national educational context (Notman 2011). NZ is very supportive of ECE because, among other things, it is used


│ 91

to promote cultural pluralism amongst its indigenous Māori population, immigrant Asian, and long-entrenched European populations, known as ‘Pakeha’. The Māori peoples make up roughly 15 per cent of NZ’s population and are second only in number to the Pakeha (2013 Census). But Māori culture and tradition play a unique and very central position in the nation’s education based on an approach called, Te Whariki, an ECE curriculum that emphasizes language and culture intended to enable children (and their families) to learn and grow through self-determination (Smith & May 2006). Metaphorically, this curriculum is based on the Māori woven mat (whariki), which is a tapestry that weaves together disparate elements of a society into a unified pattern upon which all can stand (May & Carr 2013). Te Whari, therefore, serves as the foundational curriculum for a life built upon cultural values and beliefs that is developed through a process of talk, reflection, planning, evaluation and assessment among leaders and teachers and their children and families. The Te Whariki curriculum weaves five key strands: wellbeing, belonging, contribution, communication and exploration, with four key principles: holistic development, empowerment, relationships, and family and community upon which all subsequent learning is built (May 2014). Note the centrality of relationships, family and community in this Māori inspired approach to developing ECE youngsters. But while Maori culture provides the foundation for the ECE curriculum, the Māori people confront real economic and social challenges, especially when compared to their Pakeha and other NZ country-mates. The Māori, on average, have higher rates of unemployment, suicide, smoking, obesity, alcohol and drug abuse, and domestic violence. And though they make up only 15 per cent of the population, the Māori represent almost 50 per cent of the nation’s incarcerated. Therefore, while NZ is committed to trying to address these inequities through ECE, the nation still has some ways to go.

Findings Following the protocols developed for ISSPP (Jacobson & Day 2007), and adapted for high needs case studies by ISLDN, in the larger study Notman and Jacobson (2018) considered the ECE leaders’ work in relation to the three core practices for successful school leadership noted earlier: setting direction, developing people and redesigning the organization (Leithwood & Riehl 2005). The authors then drew comparisons between the practices of the three ECE leaders studied and those of leaders in primary and secondary education. At all three sites, leaders exhibited these core practices in much the same ways as leaders in diverse, high needs primary and secondary schools found in earlier studies from both the ISSPP and the ISLDN, (Garza, Drysdale, Gurr, Jacobson & Merchant 2014; Giles, Johnson, Brooks & Jacobson 2005; Jacobson 2008; Jacobson, Johnson, Giles & Ylimaki 2005; Jacobson, Brooks, Giles, Johnson & Ylimaki 2007; Ylimaki, Jacobson & Drysdale 2007). The significance of the Notman and Jacobson (2018) study was that it broadened the scope of those research projects by adding an ECE component. Moreover, at all three ECE sites, Notman and Jacobson (2018) found that the child-centered direction setting of the leader aligned with the precepts of Te Whariki, such that symbiotic

92 |


relationships emerged between teachers and parents/caregivers because teachers and leaders went out of their way to meet the needs of parents – both material and emotional – while also supporting the holistic development of their children. It is interesting to note that in studies of primary and secondary schools, developing people typically focused on the continuing professional development of teachers (see e.g., Jacobson, Brooks et al. 2007), but for the ECE leaders studied, while developing their center’s teachers was important, it was no more so than the development of the child’s primary teachers – their parents. These ECE leaders worked tirelessly to meet the needs of children and their families. As a result, strong connections developed with families that built cooperation and trust, and the comfort parents felt with teachers and teacher leaders (and vice versa) was obvious at all three sites. These positive, nurturing relationships revealed what we believe to be our most noteworthy finding, that is, the extent to which these three ECE leaders were helping young parents learn how to become better at parenting. These improved parenting skill sets were particularly valuable to those ECE families dealing with social disruptions such as relocation, which meant separation from extended families and childrearing support. For an increasing number of young, first-time parents, living without the support of an extended family meant that it was their child’s teachers, teaching them how to raise their child that could perhaps ‘make or break’ their child’s future success. As noted earlier, we did not track children longitudinally, therefore we can neither confirm nor refute the economic productivity arguments presented at the beginning of the paper. However, the study does provide initial insights into what highquality ECE looks like in high needs settings, and how leaders in these contexts work with their centers’ children, parents and community to develop what Epstein (2011) would describe as the family-like school. Therefore, to get a better understanding of how these ECE leaders got this work done, the present study delved deeper into the responses of parents about how the impact of trusting, nurturing school/family relationships helped them learn how to become better parents. Specifically, the responses below are direct quotes from parents across the three sites to questions about the role of the ECE center and its leader and teachers in improving their parenting experiences. We begin by offering some general observations about how the leader and teachers relate to the center’s children and parents and create the initial impressions that make the center both nurturing and engaging: I quite like in the morning when you bring your child in. The teachers make a point of saying good morning to each child as they walk in, that’s really nice. It’s a stable environment I think, and they know what to expect when they come in. I think the head teacher promoted parent participation. She’s really good that way, always telling you what’s happening, what’s going on. I feel like you can talk to her about anything if you need to have a chat. You know she’s a very busy lady at times, she’s got a lot to do, but she’s always very gracious and tries her best. She always taps into things that you’re doing or if there’s anything she can get for you or help you, a really nice thing to do. It’s like going that little bit extra, saying I’m taking an interest


│ 93

in what your child’s doing and supporting the fact that I’m obviously interested in what she’s doing and telling her about it as well. She just, sort of, calms everything. Calming! Keeps everybody, and it makes a nice calm environment. You need that with young children! You need to be calm because it reflects off you, they absorb that a little I feel. I think they’re [teachers] very approachable with any problems that you’ve got. You can easily go and talk to them. They’ve got quite different strengths as well, which is quite good. They allow the kids to be kids, which is quite important. They’ll also rein them in when need be, so they let them be kids, but they’ll judge which require discipline and which is just normal childhood behavior. There are definite rules and the kids know where they stand. They’re quite good at engaging the kids and recognizing the kids’ strengths. They’ll work with those strengths, but then once they’re really confident and the kids are quite confident within the center, they’ll help to work on their weaknesses. I know especially with my own child. All of the teachers have their own individual personalities and their own contributions and the different mixture of age groups here, they’re different, they just all have their own little – which is wonderful. I would say they’re a cohesive group, they work well together, they communicate well together, it’s good role modeling for the children. Then they feel at ease, they know – and you know my daughter doesn’t feel like she only has to stick / feels comfortable with one person, she can go and talk to somebody else which I tapped into quite early on. Because I wouldn’t have wanted to think she could only be comfortable with one, and if one teacher was away one day that she would completely fall under and feel oh my goodness what do I do now? And she doesn’t feel that way, she feels like, it’s a good strong support there for her and all the teachers are singing from the same hymn sheet as you’d say. They’ve all got their own special things that contribute. They know what’s expected of them around behavior and they know the rules. And the kids are often involved in making some of the rules around certain things. I think the teachers are very engaged with individual children as well. They are interested in what the kids are doing when you’re not here. One senses from these initial responses the trust and confidence parents have developed in the leader’s and teachers’ ability to gauge appropriate child behavior, which enables them to feel comfortable about leaving their youngsters in their care. This emerging trust then lays the groundwork for building community and a family-like school: The teachers are approachable, kind, I’d say loving and nurturing. They make the environment feel warm and for the parents I think as well, and the children, for example, you come in the door and there’s always hello Maria, hello Rhianwin, how

94 |


are you today? You always feel comfortable, you feel like part of the small community. I think it’s extremely important, especially in early childhood because it could be their very first contact, apart from the family, immediate family, and it’s I feel it’s sort of giving them their first trial run into more of a community and the wider world. They get them involved in the community and part of what other people are doing in the wider world. I think the team works really well together, it feels like there’s no one thing, but you I feel when you walk into the room you feel comfortable, relaxed, and it’s a nice ‘homey’ atmosphere, and it’s really, really important because I personally feel if the environment’s not comfortable then the learning’s not going to take place. I think that you need to start with the foundations of respect, of good communication, all of those types of things, and upon that obviously you build a foundation of good education as well for the children. Because they feel comfortable to learn, they feel happy, they feel content and they want to learn naturally. I was quite apprehensive, which felt quite strange to myself because I thought I’m quite confident, but it’s different when you have a daughter or a child of your own because it’s more emotive and it’s harder to separate those things. I found they were so lovely, they just let me – how would I say it? – they just let me, gave me time to relax and just let her be involved in things. I mean it took probably about a week, I’d come and stay, but she was like bye Mum. By the end of it and I was like really?! But I think a lot of parents go through that, regardless of things that have happened in the past, but I think I had some worries about her health and being with other people and touching other people and things like that. I don’t think we put it onto her, but in here it’s hard because naturally we’re human and we still … because she was having such a happy and wonderful time there was no need for me to – I had to come on board with how she was feeling happy, so I couldn’t but feel happy for her. So that’s what it’s all about at the end of the day, about her and her happiness and I just kind of stepped back and let go. It’s very hard for a mother sometimes! And she’s just blossomed. She’s flourished and she’s fine. I think she took a lot quicker to settle than her mother did, but that’s OK, I can admit to that. I think that in my experience the teachers have been good at developing relationships between the children as well, perhaps buddying up people or I guess sharing activities that bring the children together and being able to make the friendships through them. Although there is a mix of socio economic backgrounds it doesn’t matter – the kids all seem to be equals. I sort of think it doesn’t matter if you’re from a rich family or a poor family.


│ 95

It is important to add that the work leaders undertook to build community was not just intended for parents currently at the center, but also to make it clear to future participants that the center was a welcoming community: The afternoon playgroup on Wednesday isn’t a kindergarten session, it’s specifically for the community – anyone can come. That’s how I first came here and was able to make relationships with other mums and for my daughter to make some friends before starting … Once trust and community had been established, the parents we spoke to, many of whom were first time parents or young parents no longer living near their extended families, started viewing teachers as parenting exemplars, especially when dealing with challenging behaviors they didn’t really know how to address: I sometimes use the teachers as examples, would so and so let you do that? And they’re like no. That’s right – can’t do it here either! I found the teachers, personally for my child, they’ve been very helpful when I’ve been finding some challenging behaviors at home or difficulties with getting here or things that might be going on. They have always been full of helpful things, or even just letting you know that other kids do that too, so perhaps don’t worry about it so much, it might be a phase. So that’s been good too. When my daughter started and we were having the issues of leaving her here, they were very helpful with that, whereas I know people who have struggled in other kindergartens where the child hasn’t wanted to stay and the teachers haven’t supported them, so that’s certainly not the case here. The head teacher explained to me why she thinks my daughter was acting the way she was, and has put in steps to avoid certain situations and yes, it’s all down to the head teacher I believe, and the rest of the teaching team as well. It’s been good. When I was at playgroup one day and I just had my wee one, she was a baby and I was putting her into the pram to go home and my other daughter came in, slapped me very hard on the back and the head teacher heard the slap – she had been in the office – and she was up like a shot, out, and she took my daughter away into time out. Because I had my hands full with the baby she took over the disciplining for me and she did the time out and she did the – you know – until she was ready to come back out. It was quite a long time, about ten minutes, that my daughter was howling and screaming and the head sat there very calmly, very patiently with her. I appreciated that. To this last comment, two other parents in the group quickly added: It was also good for those of us who were seeing that, it was role modelling. The head teacher was the role model for how to deal with that – it can be very challenging for a parent.

96 |


Yes, especially in public sometimes too, so it can be quite helpful to see and it’s OK to discipline your child in public, because it can be quite hard to do sometimes. And it is not just teachers’ reactions and responses to certain behaviors that parents appreciate, it is also coming to understand the broader perspectives the teachers and leaders take when evaluating children and their development: How do you know your kid’s happy? I’m finding that difficult to come up with an answer to that because my one is probably one of the behavior issue kids and she doesn’t say much or express how happy she is or why she’s happy, but she always wants to come, so that’s something, and I have had lots of – I’ve had some really good discussions with one of the teachers about that and actually discovering that they do know her and I wasn’t sure if they knew her for a while. It wasn’t until I had this big long conversation that I realized that they really do and they know that she likes things a certain way and when the other kids get in her way it all goes turned upside down and they get that and they helped, well they talked about different strategies I could use at home, and ones that they will use here. So that was a huge thing for me to come to know that and that helped me feel more comfortable with her being here. One of the challenges I’ve had with my daughter is she seems to be extremely oversensitive to textures and sensations – I probably shouldn’t say extremely, but there are times when getting her dressed to come to ‘kindy’ is a huge challenge, and we go through many changes and me tearing my hair out. My interactions with the head teacher have been really helpful, just knowing that worst case I can bring her in her pajamas, which we haven’t ever resorted to, but just knowing that’s an option, and kind of talking me through the fact that there are children who – I think I was thinking that oh she’s just being a pain, whereas it is possible … and so that’s just an example – one way – I feel that I’m more patient and understanding and perhaps have a bit more empathy towards what my daughter is experiencing. The head teacher is very good at reading people and situations and when interventions are needed, and for me with my child it was around her speech. She was a bit delayed with her speech sounds and so I was able to discuss that with the head teacher and she was able to intervene. She had her eye on it – I didn’t realize that, I spoke to her, I was about to say something about if it would get better in this timeframe but she brought it up with the health nurse and was able to intervene and give me help in the special language therapist for my child which was quite cool. But she’s very good at reading people, reading and sort of seeing what needs to be done which I feel is a strength. To the preceding observation, another parent quickly added: I had a similar experience. She was – I wouldn’t say bullying, it was just sort of kids being kids. But it’s hard for a new parent to come into that world with their own kid.


│ 97

I found, because I didn’t want to make it about the other child, I wanted it to be about my child learning how to deal with those situations, because you can get that all through your life. They were very supportive saying yes, we’ll be able to keep an eye out for that and help her to deal with it and gave me some tips to talk about it with her at home and what I could say and how they would deal with it at kindergarten to support her at home and at ‘kindy’, which was quite cool. They were very supportive. I came away feeling a lot better than when I came in, which is a good sign, you wouldn’t want it the other way! The leader also assisted parents in need by securing the help of other child care professionals, which made the parent feel that she was being protected and not left alone to fend for her child: My daughter has had anxiety issues and the head teacher, we both talked about it and have come to the same conclusion that what was happening at ‘kindy’ was also happening at home and within a week the head teacher had contacted the public health nurse, and within a couple of weeks we were getting seen by the public health nurse and it’s been pretty much smooth sailing ever since. And I don’t know if that would have been dealt with as effectively if it had been through another channel, but the head teacher was definitely fantastic and I was in tears sometimes and she was just fantastic. Mother duck! She was so good. Didn’t make me feel silly for being in tears and understood where I was coming from as well, which was quite good, and set up quite a good support system with other parents as well, which has helped a lot. Once it became obvious that parents were referencing the positive effects that teachers and leaders were having on their relationships with their children, we started asking them very directly, have the experiences in this center made you a better parent? Yes. I would say so. It’s made me more patient with my daughter, understanding that her anxieties are actually justified. Yes, concerns I think are definitely heard by the teachers and taken to heart. They care so much, which is really something. Not only are the teachers able to do really well in terms of supporting the learning of the children, but they can also support parents in terms of things at home and parenting and advice and things. They are always happy to talk about any challenges you’re finding, like talk about your children, so if you’ve got concerns they’ll always be happy to give any advice that they can, which is good. She helped me to feel more confident as a mum in what I was already doing and just to confirm that whereas I was kind of hearing these voices and things going you’re doing it wrong, and the head just helped me to be more relaxed about it and that’s huge for a mum I think.

98 |


I just look at my daughter and think how she’s just blossomed, she’s social, she’s interested and excited in things and every day she comes home and tells me how things are going. And that’s the success of a center, the fact that she is so full of enthusiasm. She wants to come here, she wants to be part of the environment, it’s part of her environment. I don’t know about ownership but it’s part of her wee community and that’s the success to me, the fact that she feels part of it, she feels involved, she’s learning all the time, she’s like a wee sponge she’s learning so much and we glean from that ourselves and we try to extend it on our end at home. She then goes back to center and then extends on it again and they just keep supporting and motivating her and the teachers are there for her when she needs them and they also give her space when she needs to have her space as well to grow. So that’s what I feel the success of the center is. As this last quote attests, ultimately, parents feel best when they see their child flourishing. This is particularly the case for those parents who don’t have the support of an extended family and who feel uncertain about their own skills at parenting. Knowing that your child is in the safe hands of a competent educational professional who is willing to model best practices and make you feel that you are not alone in dealing with challenging behaviors built the confidence of many of these young parents. These are critically important aspects of quality ECE and the work of ECE leaders that, to date, have gone under-reported.

Discussion and Conclusions Notman and Jacobson (2018) found that ECE leaders exhibit the same core practices of setting directions, developing people and redesigning the organization found in the work of successful principals in elementary and secondary schools. These findings thus expand the scope of earlier ISSPP and ISLDN research initiatives by adding ECE to these higher levels of educational governance. But Notman and Jacobson (2018) also found that ECE leaders work hard at creating positive school/family relationships to increase parental involvement in hopes of helping economically disadvantaged families repair gaps that might impede a youngster’s school success. In this study, we delved deeper into the responses of the parents at these centers, looking specifically at the efforts of these ECE leaders to build trust and community, engage parental involvement, and help parents improve at parenting. Our findings confirm recommendations by Leithwood et al. (2017) that in order to develop family/school partnerships, leaders should create a welcoming environment, initiate the process of building relationships with parents, have teachers that believe in parents as partners in their children’s learning, involve parents in decisions that affect their child, and provide strategies and resources for parents to support their children’s learning. Parents at these three centers found teachers and leaders to be both nurturing and engaging, which enabled them to feel comfortable entrusting their children in the center’s care. More importantly, these parents began to trust and want to model the parenting skills of these educational professionals. Parents began to see teachers and leaders as role models for


│ 99

helping them deal with challenging behaviors exhibited by their youngsters. Parents also appreciated the direct support they received from teachers and leaders both in terms of guidance for dealing with challenging behaviors at home and identifying additional professional supports as needed. For many parents at these centers, who confront socioeconomic challenges common to high needs communities such as being a single parent, having limited formal education, living below the poverty line, having unstable housing accommodations and/or limited time for their children (Leithwood & Patrician 2017), these ECE centers became family-like schools (Epstein 2011) because the leaders were deliberate in their efforts to bring these partnerships to fruition. Many of the parents we interviewed had been displaced and cut off from their traditional familial support networks. For these parents, the overlap between school and the family helped them build confidence in their own parenting abilities and they were unanimous when asked if being at the ECE had made them a better parent. And while the long-term effects of these improved parenting experiences on children’s future success is a matter of speculation, it is certainly worthy of careful consideration. Prior research findings from both the ISSPP and ISLDN confirm the fact that leaders and teachers can have a positive in-school impact on student success. This study suggests that leaders and teachers in quality ECE centers can also help improve critically important out-of-school factors, particularly parenting skills. Combined, these in- and out-ofschool factors should produce additive beneficial outcomes for students both in the short and long term.

References Bonci, A., Mottram, E., McCoy, E., & Cole, J. (2011). A Research Review: The importance of families and the home environment. London, UK: National Literacy Trust. Bush, T. (2013). Leadership in early childhood education. Educational Management Administration Leadership, 41(1), 3-4. Coleman, J. S., & Others. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity: The Coleman Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Epstein, J. (2011). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Garza, E., Drysdale, L., Gurr, D., Jacobson, S., & Merchant, B. (2014). Leadership for school success: Lessons from effective principals. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(7), 798-811. Giles, C., Johnson, L., Brooks, S., & Jacobson, S. (2005). Building bridges, building community: Transformational leadership in a challenging urban context. Journal of School Leadership, 15(5), 519-545. Goddard, J. T. (2015). A tangled path: Negotiating leadership for, in, of and with diverse communities. Leadership and Policy in Schools 14(1), 1-11. Heckman, J., & Krueger, A. (2005). Inequality in America: What role for human capital policies? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jacobson, S. (2008). Leadership for success in high poverty elementary schools. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 23(1), 3-19.

100 |


Jacobson, S. (2011). School leadership and its effects on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 33-44. Jacobson, S., Brooks, S., Giles, C., Johnson, L., & Ylimaki, R. (2007). Successful leadership in three high poverty urban elementary schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(4), 1-27. Jacobson, S., & Day, C. (2007). The International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP): An overview of the project, the case studies and their contexts. International Studies in Educational Administration, 35(3), 3-10. Jacobson, S., Johnson, L., Giles, C., & Ylimaki, R. (2005). Successful leadership in U.S. schools: Enabling principles, enabling schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 607-618. Jeynes, W. (2017). Effects of Family Educational Cultures on Student Success at School: Directions for leadership. In K. Leithwood, J. Sun & K. Pollock (Eds.), How School Leaders Contribute to Student Success (pp. 311-328). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Leithwood, K., & Patrician, P. (2017). Changing the Educational Culture of the Home to Increase Student Success at School. In K. Leithwood, J. Sun & K. Pollock (Eds.), How School Leaders Contribute to Student Success, (pp. 329-351). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005). What We Know about Successful School Leadership. In W. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A New Agenda: Directions for research on educational leadership (pp. 22-47). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & Pollock, K. (2017). How School Leaders Contribute to Student Success. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Lipsey, M., Weiland, C., Yoshikawa, H., Wilson. S., & Hofer, K. (2015). Prekindergarten age-cutoff regression-discontinuity design: Methodological issues and implications for application. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(3), 296-313. May, H. (2007). ‘Minding’, ‘working’, ‘teaching’: Childcare in Aotearoa/New Zealand, 1940s – 2000s. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(2), 133-143 May, H. (2014). New Zealand: A narrative of shifting policy directions for early childhood education and care. In L. Gambaro, K. Stewart & J. Waldfogel (Eds.), An Equal Start? Providing quality early education and care for disadvantaged children (pp. 147-170). Bristol, UK: Policy Press. May, H., & Carr, M. (2013). Te Whariki: A uniquely woven curriculum shaping policy, pedagogy and practice in Aotearoa New Zealand. In T. David, K. Goouch & S. Powell (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Philosophies and Theories of Early Childhood Education and Care (Chap. 32, pp. 316-326). London, UK: Routledge. Notman, R. (2011). Building Leadership Success in a New Zealand Education Context. In R. Notman (Ed.), Successful School Leadership in New Zealand: Case studies of schools and an early childhood centre (pp. 135-152). Wellington, NZ: NZCER Press. Notman, R., & Jacobson, S. (2018 – in press). School Leadership Practices in Early Childhood Education (ECE): Three case studies from New Zealand. In E. Murakami, D. Gurr & R. Notman (Eds.), Leadership, Culture and School Success in High-Need Schools (pages to be confirmed). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Reardon, S. (2011). The Widening Academic Achievement Gap Between the Rich and the Poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In G. Duncan & R. Murnane (Eds.), Whither Opportunity: Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 91-116). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Schweinhart, L., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime Effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool study through age 40. (Monographs of the HighScope Educational Research Foundation, 14). Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.


│ 101

Smith, A., & May, H. (2006). Early Childhood Care and Education in Aotearoa-New Zealand. In E. Melhuish & K. Petrogiannis (Eds.), Early Childhood Care and Education: International perspectives (pp. 95114). Oxon, UK: Routledge. Thornton, K. (2010). School leadership and student outcomes: The best evidence synthesis iteration: Relevance for early childhood education and implications for leadership practice. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 25(1), 30-40. Thornton, K. (2011). Whanau Leadership in Early Childhood. In R. Notman (Ed.), Successful Educational Leadership in New Zealand (pp. 99-109). Wellington: NZCER. Thornton, K., & Wansbrough, D. (2012). Professional learning communities in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 27(2), 51-64. Thornton, K., Wansbrough, D., Clarkin-Phillips, J., Aitken, H., & Tamiti, A. (2009). Conceptualising Leadership in Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Teachers’ Council. United Nations High Commission for Refugees. (2013). Mid-Year Trends, 2013 (retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/52af08d26.html). Wahlberg, H. J. (1981). Childhood traits and environmental conditions of highly eminent adults. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(3), 103-107. Ylimaki, R., Jacobson, S., & Drysdale, L. (2007) Making a difference in challenging, high-poverty schools: Successful principals in the US, England and Australia. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(4), 361-381.

Author Details Stephen Jacobson, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, USA Email: [email protected] Ross Notman, University of Otago, New Zealand Email: [email protected]

102 |


School Leadership and STEM Enactment in a High Needs Secondary School in Belize Noemi Waight, Lorenda Chisolm and Stephen Jacobson

Abstract: This case study examined how the work of school leaders informed the curricular trajectory and enactment of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education in a high needs secondary school in Belize. More specifically, the study examined (a) the role of school leaders, (b) how school leaders made decisions about the design and development of the STEM curriculum, (c) how context informed the STEM curriculum, (d) how STEM curriculum was enacted in practice, and, (e) students’ experiences in STEM related courses. Findings revealed that school leaders emphasised five main themes: engage in student recruitment; facilitate opportunities for access to school and community-based experiences; prepare students to contribute to the economics of their community (e.g., tourism); provide professional development for teachers; and, address administrative and logistical issues. For school leaders, expectations for science and technology curriculum reflected the global urgency of preparing youth for STEM careers. While science and technology resources were limited in the context of schooling (e.g., lack of science lab and equipment), science inquiry experiences were provided through field-based investigations and school–community project-based experiences related to integrated science and ecology. In this study context simultaneously offered opportunities but also limited the scope of STEM engagement and teaching and learning. This study has implications for understanding the critical role of school leaders in informing and developing opportunities for STEM teaching and learning. Keywords: School leadership, STEM, STEM reform, school leader decisions, STEM curriculum

Introduction Research on the outcomes of reform efforts in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education at the K-12 level (e.g., science education) often focuses on the role of teachers and students and associated classroom dynamics (National Research Council 2011). For example, in science education, the success and challenges of reform are often


│ 103

attributed to teacher and student beliefs and attitudes (McGinnis et al. 2002; Veal, Lloyd, Howell & Peters 2016; Zacharia 2003), knowledge and expertise (Smith & Southerland 2007; van Driel, Beijaard & Verloop 2001), training and professional development (Banilower, Heck & Weiss 2007; Supovitz & Turner 2000) and access to school related resources. Addressing STEM reform more broadly, Bybee (2013) argued that the major challenges with STEM implementation were related to basic understandings of what STEM represents and the tenets of STEM literacy. Bybee noted that these challenges occur in the context of the education community and state and national supports. While the above factors certainly inform on the impact of reform efforts, they do not provide a complete snapshot of the most significant factors that inform outcomes of reform. Teaching and learning, and the context and culture of classroom dynamics extend beyond the roles of teachers and students. Other school agents such as school leaders are key players in the ecosystem of precollege STEM. Indeed, analysis of the research related to school leadership revealed significant limitations with the above perspective. The Wallace Foundation (2013: 4) reported that ‘most [educational] variables, considered separately, have at most small effects on learning’. In converse, they argued that educational yield is maximised when understandings of more variables are combined to inform better models, and in this case, models of STEM reform. Wahlstrom, Louis, Leithwood and Anderson (2010) reported that it has been well established that school leadership follows teacher quality and classroom instruction as the next most important variable. In recent work, Lochmiller and Acker-Hocevar (2016) further affirmed that principals can improve math and science achievement by promoting conditions favourable to teacher collaboration and innovative instruction. In the context of math and science their recommendations focused on professional development, process-oriented inquiry-based instructional approaches, emphasis on formative assessment and promoting departmental culture inclusive of students’ potential to excel. Altogether, this research reinforced that school leaders serve a fundamental, supportive role in ensuring the success and sustainability of STEM reform. STEM education is defined as a ‘standards-based’ meta discipline that engages math, science, technology and engineering content in a dynamic and fluid integrated approach (Brown, Brown, Reardon & Merrill 2011). Bybee (2013) explained that STEM reform encapsulates four main themes: addressing global challenges that citizens must understand; changing perceptions of environmental and associated problems; recognising 21st century workforce skills; and continuing issues of national security. In the context of this study, the first three themes are significant and timely. Bybee argued that the above main themes had clear connections with STEM disciplines. For example, he addressed how STEM disciplines respond to broad social issues and current challenges, and in this respect, reflect a global scope. In light of the second theme, the focus centred on the physical world and on the central place of ecology and importantly, the linkages with sustainable development. Evidently, sustainable development has cross-cultural and cross border implications which affect the conditions of our environment regardless of our location. Twenty-first century skills, which

104 |


Bybee (2013) argues are developed while engaged in STEM learning, include adaptability, complex communications, non-routine problem solving, self-management, and systems thinking. These skills reinforce knowledge of the scientific and technological enterprise and in turn inform on students’ development of scientific literacy. In light of Bybee’s discussion, STEM reform introduces opportunities but simultaneously gives rise to teaching and learning challenges. The explication of STEM reform illustrates that this process places tremendous burden on STEM teachers who are already charged with the arduous task of addressing content and associated assessments. Notwithstanding, reform is a lengthy process which requires continuous support, resources and education. School leaders thus serve a critical role providing support and access to resources. Indeed Lochmiller (2016) discussed that hands-on leaders are present in the instructional process and work in tandem with teachers to make decisions about practice. This engagement positively influences student achievement. In support, the Wallace Foundation (2013: 6) reported that successful schools are built around ‘leaders of learning who can develop a team delivering effective instruction’. In this regard, the Wallace Foundation (2013) outlined five key responsibilities: shaping a vision of academic success for all students, one based on high standards, creating a climate hospitable to education in order to ensure safety; fostering a cooperative spirit and other foundations of fruitful interaction prevail; cultivating leadership in others so that teachers and other adults assume their parts in realising the school vision; improving instruction to enable teachers to teach at their best and students to learn to their utmost; and, managing people, data and processes to foster school improvement. This research affirmed a strong linkage with student achievement and leadership roles and expectations and subsequent indicators of high performing schools. Despite the well-documented positive association of school leaders and classroom instruction, collective decision making related to curriculum, and instructional coaching, Lochmiller and Acker-Hocevar (2016) acknowledged a notable paucity of research on principals’ ‘instructional leadership’ in math and science. In response, they suggested the need to examine the ways in which principals make sense of the need to provide support and improve instruction in science: ‘more research is needed to understand how principals determine what leadership actions to take, as well as why they should be taken’ (p. 274). This absence of research, which is also evident in the STEM domain, suggests that more research is needed in order to understand the complementary role of school leaders and STEM reform. What is more, this suggests that more research is needed to understand how school leaders make decisions and inform STEM curriculum enactment in high needs schools. While the positive association of school leadership and achievement is well established, few studies have examined the role of school leadership, STEM reform efforts and STEM enactment at the high school level. In response, this case study examined how the work of school leaders informed the curricular trajectory and enactment of STEM in a high needs secondary school in Belize. More specifically, the study examined (a) the role of school


│ 105

leaders, (b) how school leaders made decisions about the design and development of the STEM curriculum, (c) how context informed the STEM curriculum, (d) how STEM curriculum was enacted in practice, and (e) students’ experiences in STEM related courses. The following research questions guided the study: 1.

What are the roles of school leaders in a high needs secondary school in Belize?

2.

How were these roles aligned with the goals of STEM?

3.

How is the STEM curriculum enacted in a high needs secondary school in Belize?

4.

What were students’ experiences with STEM related courses?

While this study was conducted in the context of Belize, it has global implications for understanding the roles of school leaders, the decision-making process and support for STEM reform implementation and enactment. Specifically, it offers insight to understand the contextual and cultural nuances of STEM implementation and enactment in high needs schools. Given the reform efforts of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (NGSS Lead States 2013), this study is timely. In addition, this study was significant because it examined the reciprocal relationship of school leadership and STEM enactment. Understanding the culture and conditions that foster innovative instructional approaches to teaching and learning can inform on models of quality and sustainable reform in high needs contexts. In addition, examination of these conditions in high needs contexts is significant. According to Museus, Palmer, Davis and Maramba (2011), students’ interest in STEM in high needs environments is often stagnated due to school district funding differences; tracking into remedial courses; lack of opportunities for advanced placement courses; lack of qualified teachers, low teacher expectations; and high attrition rates. These conditions, which limit opportunities for quality STEM experiences at the high school level, reinforce the urgency to examine how school leadership informs models of STEM instructional practice.

Context and Background Belize is a Central American country bordered by Mexico to the North and Guatemala to the South. Located off the Caribbean Sea, Belize is comprised of hundreds of islands known as cayes. A former British colony, Belize gained its independence in 1981 from Great Britain. As a Central American country, Belize is unique because of its colonised and enslaved history. In comparison to its neighbouring countries, Belize is an English-speaking country that shares more in common with its Caribbean nations, for example Jamaica. Indeed, Lewis (2000) explained that ‘Belize has historically been regarded as a West Indian nation in a Hispanic region’ (p. 1). Given its history, Belize is comprised of six ethnic groups. With a population of 232,000, Mestizos represent 52 per cent of the population, while Creoles account for 26 per cent of the population (see The Statistical Institute of Belize 2013). In terms of education, it was reported that 63,700 and 17,200 students were enrolled in primary and secondary level respectively. Enrolment at the secondary level suggests that a large percentage (more than 60 per cent) of Belizean students are not accessing education beyond the primary level. In fact,

106 |


the Policy and Planning Unit of the Ministry of Education reported that much of the discrepancies with school enrolment may be related to location and specifically, access to schooling in rural communities (Ministry of Education, Youth, Sports and Culture n.d.). Lewis (2000: 9) documented the overreaching influence of religion in the Belizean educational system. Essentially, [T]he schools represented a church-state institution in that the goals were also reflective of the colony’s goals. The goals were to maintain a society divided by occupation, race and class. The goals were to make sure that people understood that the Whites, the merchants and landowners were in control. Schools in Belize like elsewhere in the world, were transmitters of social order. Students learned about Britain and Europe, not about Belize and the Caribbean. The primary teaching method involved rote learning instead of critical thinking. For some time, secondary and tertiary education was modelled after the British system. While this system was intended to facilitate social mobility, numerous barriers prevented this from becoming a reality for most Belizean students. Among these barriers, Lewis (2000) documented high rates of primary school dropout and access related to school location and finances. This finding further reinforced Naslünd-Hadley, Alonzo and Martin’s (2013) findings that access and enrolment in secondary education is a major equity issue. Related to finances, Chisolm (2017: 6) explained: ‘In looking at the economics of education as a set of inputs and outputs, funding distribution and access to secondary education, particularly career and technical education, is vital for young people to escape poverty.’ While primary school education is accessible across the broad spectrum of urban, suburban and rural locations, access to secondary schooling is more limited. In fact, until recently, most secondary schools were located only in the major towns which could be described as more urban. As a result, students in rural areas would have to travel to these towns in order to gain access to a secondary education. Access to secondary education has significant implications in the context of the current study. Social Justice Academy (SJA) was founded in 2008 on a small island, Blue Cove Caye, which is located about an hour away from the mainland and the City of Belize. Prior to its establishment, there was no secondary school on the island. Currently, SJA is considered a rural school and serves an approximate population of 70 students; the school was initiated with 10 students. The two founders of the school, along with a counsellor, currently serve as the leadership team. As noted above, access to secondary schooling was significant for this small island because of access and a context-based focus. School leader Ilene explained that the motivation for starting a school on the island was based on the limited options that 12and 13-year-old students had after they graduated from primary school: They could take the water taxi and go back and forth every day to a high school on the mainland. They could move away from the island and board with family members in


│ 107

a village on the mainland and go to a village school. Or, what a lot of them did, is they quit. So, the mission of the school was consistent with the above motivation: ‘Our goal is equitable access to education for all students’ (Ilene, Interview 1). In addition to the leadership team, the school also employed 11 teachers, eight of whom are full time. The school also benefits tremendously from at least 15-20 community volunteers. These volunteers serve as instructors in various capacities that include but are not limited to hospitality, cooking and food preparation, physical activities such as yoga and a running club, and fly-fishing. The school structure includes four grades, form 1-4, the equivalent of grades 9-12 in the American educational system. The curriculum was comprised of 19 courses including universal courses such as Math, English, Reading, and Integrated Science. These courses were standards and consistent across all publically funded schools. STEM in secondary schools generally involved a focus on the sciences and technology. The sciences focused on traditional subject areas such as biology, physics, chemistry and earth science. The standard science curriculum at SJA followed the national curriculum. This curriculum is organised to address Forms 1 and 2 and culminates with summative assessment known as the Caribbean Examination Council (CXC). The main preparation for CXC occurs in Form 3 and 4. Science, in the context of SJA, focused on environmental education, marine biology and ecology. The school also supplemented its curriculum with courses and learning experiences related to the ecotourism economy of the island. While the school was initially funded through fundraisers and other philanthropic endeavours, eventual funding support from the Ministry of Education was instrumental for the growth of the school. Funding provided access to basic services such as teacher salaries, access to instructional materials, and maintenance of the school building. In addition to being a stand-alone study, this study also contributed to the work of the International School Leadership Development Network (ISLDN) formed two years ago as a joint initiative of the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society (BELMAS) and the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA). Stimulated by the success of the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) (see, Jacobson & Day 2007) a series of discussions was undertaken by UCEA to determine what might be researched under the banner of the ISLDN. Currently there are researchers conducting work across 20 countries in the ISLDN. Two streams of interest that emerged were a focus on leadership in high needs schools, and leadership for social justice. Both streams have involved small scale, case study research to empirically explore these two areas of research work. Elsewhere, my colleagues (Chisolm 2017; Chisolm, Waight & Jacobson 2018, in press) report on how the role of school leaders and social justice agenda impact student outcomes.

108 |


Literature Review Merrill (2009, cited in Brown et al. 2011: 6) defined STEM education as: … a standards-based, meta discipline residing at the school level where all teachers, especially science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers, teach an integrated approach … where … content is … addressed … as one dynamic, fluid study. In this regard STEM teaching and learning is intended to address the dynamic nature of STEM fields through authentic practices that involve inquiry-based, problem solving and innovative pedagogical approaches intended to solve human wants and needs. In light of these conceptualisations of technology, Brown et al. (2011) investigated how teachers and administrators conceptualised notions of STEM. Their findings suggested that greater awareness of STEM was important. While on the surface participants were able to espouse basic understandings of STEM, deep conceptual understandings were absent. Second, the findings also revealed that understandings of STEM were not consistent across teachers and administrators. While STEM-specific domains embraced the value of STEM integration, Brown et al. (2011) explicated that understandings of STEM at the teacher and administrator level were lacking. Importantly, and relevant to this study, less than half of administrators understood what STEM meant. In other words, well-intentioned efforts were not enough. Brown et al. also noted that many in technology, science and math education agreed on the importance of STEM (as evidenced by various organisations that promote STEM-related engagement at the K-12 level), however, a coherent vision for enactment of STEM was not established. Their findings documented that there was little evidence of STEM integration since 90 per cent of teachers reported that they did not collaborate with their peers in other STEM fields. The implications suggest the need (a) to prepare teachers to collaborate and integrate with other STEM domains, (b) to improve administrators’ understandings of the time, knowledge, and work required to bring teachers up to speed with expectations of STEM enactment, (c) to improve both teachers’ and administrators’ understandings of the outcomes of STEM enactment, and (d) the importance of ensuring that both teachers and administrators understand that evidence-based practices can help inform their goals and practices. The NGSS (NGSS Lead States 2013) address K-12 science content standards. The standards address three dimensions of science learning: crosscutting concepts, science and engineering practices and disciplinary core ideas. Crosscutting concepts bridge disciplinary ideas and make connections across science and engineering content. These crosscutting concepts include a focus on patterns, cause and effect, and, structure and function, among others. Science and engineering practices focus on what scientists and engineers do—scientists investigate the natural world while engineers design and build systems. The NGSS informs and has implications for this study because it addresses teaching and learning practices in science and engineering not just in the US, but also in a global context. In addition, the


│ 109

standards address a developmental approach in bridging content and skills across disciplinary boundaries. The Wallace Foundation (2013: 6) documented that school success is informed by school leaders who engage in continuous learning and who cultivate a team delivering effective instruction. In this regard, five key responsibilities were outlined: • • • • •

Shaping a vision of academic success for all students, one based on high standards. Creating a climate hospitable to education in order that safety, a cooperative spirit and other foundations of fruitful interaction prevail. Cultivating leadership in others so that teachers and other adults assume their parts in realizing the school vision. Improving instruction to enable teachers to teach at their best and students to learn to their utmost. Managing people, data and processes to foster school improvement.

The subtext of school leadership is that instructional leadership roles are often more effectively enacted at the elementary versus middle and high school level. The report notes that the major challenges at these levels are lack of understanding related to multifaceted discipline-specific focus at the high school level. Department heads are viewed as bridging agents who can co-facilitate and negotiate leadership roles. Indeed, we remain cognisant that for leaders who do not have a STEM background, understanding and bridging expectations can pose significant challenges. In a large-scale study involving nine states, 43 school districts and 180 schools, ensuring variation in school characteristics (e.g., school size, location, demographics and school level), Wahlstrom et al. (2010) reinforced that school leadership has a strong and positive effect on teaching and learning and associated student achievement. The researchers affirmed that school leadership is only second in importance to instruction and thus the interdependency is significant. This suggests that school achievement shares a strong link with leadership roles and expectations. In fact, Wahlstrom et al. noted that student achievement was a result of collective leadership, a key characteristic of high performing schools. This collective leadership influenced patterns of decision making that benefitted teachers and students and resulted in achievement gains. Evidence from the study suggested that almost all participants were involved in decision making. So, there were explicit links with the principal’s work, teacher trust in school leaders and shared principal–teacher leadership. Essentially, high performing schools were guided by the following leadership practices: ‘the schools focused on goals and expectations related to student achievement; engaged quality professional development; and, created structures and opportunities for teacher collaboration’ (Wahlstrom et al. 2010: 2). Given the above evidence, we maintain that Wahlstrom et al.’s (2010) work establishes a primary base to overlay the emphasis of STEM with school leaders and STEM classroom enactment. It offers a basis to explore models that may best support STEM reform initiatives

110 |


to meet the needs of diverse students in high needs, high poverty communities. At a time when STEM efforts are proliferating globally, it is imperative that we explore how these efforts are materialised in context? What are the roles of school leaders in facilitating these expectations? What might collective leadership look like in the context of STEM efforts? What are the key knowledge and skill components essential to leadership–teacher STEM partnerships that aim to promote goals and expectations associated with STEM teaching and learning? Research in global contexts has attempted to document the role of leadership and STEM education. For example, Bairaktarova, Cox and Evangelou (2011) discussed that very little research related to leadership and the role of STEM has been documented. Thus, to counter this limitation, some preliminary work was conducted in the Bulgarian context. The STEM approaches include: interdisciplinary courses in engineering and technology curricula; elective courses or leadership training through service-learning programs; peer tutoring model development; different projects with more international involvement and global engineering teams. So, fostering development of science, technology, and engineering skills and knowledge is as much the business of teachers and school leaders. The authors cautioned that one must give attention to cultural aspects since this may dictate local use.

Method The study design was a naturalistic case study that involved in-depth individual interviews with school leaders, STEM teachers and students, and classroom observations of STEM sessions. Data were collected during five months and triangulated to provide a holistic understanding of the case (Yin 2009). In-depth interviews served as the main instrument of data collection. Seidman (2013) asserted that in-depth interviews allow individuals to reconstruct experiences and create connections beyond surface representations. Initial interviews were conducted with all participants. Broadly, these interviews examined the role of school leaders; the nature of decision making related to STEM curriculum; and teachers’ understandings related to STEM classroom practices and enactment. Participants included two school leaders (principal, managing director, projector director), two STEM teachers—one science and one technology teacher, and students. Table 1 identifies the main participants, their educational background, overall teaching experience and years of teaching at SJA. While Heather and Ilene did not receive formal training in school leadership, Ilene had more than 20 years of teaching experience as a French, Spanish and Social Studies teacher. In contrast, Heather had previous experience as a project manager and environmental consultant. All of the student participants were enrolled in either Integrated Science or the Ecology courses taught by the science teacher. The participants were randomly selected and invited to participate. Altogether, six boys and nine girls agreed to participate.


│ 111

Table 1: Participants’ educational background, overall teaching experience and teaching experience at SJA Participant

Role

Gender

Educational

Experience at Experience in

Background

SJA (years)

K-12 (years)

Heather

Principal

F

MS

9

9

Ilene

Co-Principal

F

MEd

9

20+

Tricia

Science Teacher F

BS

9

9

Marco

Technology

AS

3

3

M

Teacher The main data sources included individual in-depth interviews, classroom observations and researcher notes. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with all school leaders and STEM teachers. One 60-minute interview was conducted with all school leaders and focused on their roles, local and national policies aimed at high needs schools, strategies leaders employ in STEM curriculum development and teacher support, strategies employed for evaluation of STEM enactment, and determining ways in which school leaders are prepared and supported. One 40-minute interview was conducted with STEM teachers and focused on their instructional approaches, access to resources, and school leadership support to enact STEM curriculum and overall teaching experiences. One 20-minute interview was conducted with a random sample of 15 students and focused on their overall experiences in STEM courses, access to resources and perceptions of school support for STEM learning. Classroom observations were conducted for five weeks and focused on the natural state of affairs in STEM (science and technology courses) classrooms. Observations were guided by an observation protocol that focused on teacher approaches with specific attention to techniques and activities, hands-on activities, classroom dynamics, teacher and student roles and classroom dynamics. Some classroom observations involved fieldwork. The data were analysed using an interpretive framework that ‘seeks to interpret people’s constructions of reality and identify uniqueness and patterns in their perspectives and behaviors’ (Glesne 2010: 19). Each interview transcript was first organised to reflect the protocol described above for each group of participants. For example, school leader transcripts were organised to reflect their descriptions of their roles, understandings of policies on high needs schools, strategies employed in curriculum development and so on. Next, these ideas were coded and organised according to main themes. For example, school leaders identified that their main role was to provide education and economic access to their students. Next, all of the identified themes were used to construct a profile for each individual

112 |


participant. The above procedures were repeated for each group, that is, STEM teachers and students. Analysis of classroom observations followed an interpretive approach. Observation transcripts were organised according to each STEM session, that is, science, technology and mathematics. Second, the major components of STEM enactment were identified and coded. Third, the major themes generated for each component of enactment were compared and contrasted. Fourth, a profile of STEM enactment for each teacher was constructed. Fifth, the enactment profile was triangulated with school leaders and student interviews. Trustworthiness was established via triangulation of various data sources. For example, both school leaders emphasised their roles in terms of creating opportunities for students. Likewise, students also highlighted the numerous opportunities that SJA provided. In addition, member checking was conducted with the adult interviews. Transcripts were shared with the participants and they were given options to delete or mute information that they did not wish to publicise.

Results Both school leaders emphasised five main themes that defined their roles at SJA: (a) engage in student recruitment, (b) facilitate opportunities for access to school and community-based experiences, (c) prepare students to contribute to the economy of their community (e.g., tourism), (d) provide professional development for teachers and, (e) address administrative and logistical issues. First, in their roles as founders of the school, both school leaders emphasised a commitment to the recruitment of students who were in their last year of primary school and youths who were of school age but not enrolled in school: I invest a lot of time in the recruiting efforts to keep people in school. If I hear such and such is saying they may drop out or I hear this one hasn’t been to school for two days … then I go to their home, I sit with them and I just give it my all. (Heather, Interview 1) Ilene indicated that since the inception of the school, they had observed a paradigm shift where most students in their last year of primary school viewed high school as the next logical step in their education trajectory. The second role focused on facilitating opportunities to access school and community-based experiences. School leader Ilene identified the enrichment programs which are also site based. She explained that these opportunities resulted from the contributions of the numerous community volunteers who loaned time and skills to give students career opportunities aligned with ecotourism: I am very passionate about marine biology, I am very passionate about the students getting training in the jobs and the industries and the skills on our island that I know are the top notched ones, and that would be the tour guides and the aquatic tourism owners. (Ilene, Interview 1)


│ 113

Ilene affirmed that adding these opportunities to their curriculum served as a way to attract ‘those nontraditional students to SJA’. The third role focused on preparation of students to contribute to their local ecotourism economy. For example, in terms of contributions to community productivity, Ilene explained that the school offered access to help students become productive and contributing members of the community: Another example is we have entrepreneurship classes and because we are a fundraising school we incorporate our need to fundraise with our educational goals of teaching the kids how to be entrepreneurs. And so [in] the small businesses we have the kids learn about in their class is kayaking, biking and fishing. (Interview 1) School leader Ilene explained that the above experiences were intended to help students generate funding for their schooling but at the same time prepare them with income-based options post-secondary schooling: ‘We want our students to feel that when they graduate from high school they can either stay on the island and create their own business as opposed to just looking for a job’ (Ilene, Interview 1). Pedro, a student, also supported the value of learning valuable skills: When I first started here [Academy], I had P.E., which was scuba diving and I got certified for advanced scuba diving. That’s very good because maybe in the future, if I want to work as a tour guide, I already can dive. I just need to get certified as a tour guide. The emphasis on entrepreneurship and P.E. activities such as scuba diving involved the understanding of scientific phenomena such as the ecology of the environment, fisheries, and important physics concepts (e.g., gases and pressure). The fourth role focused on providing professional development (PD) for teachers. In this context, Heather described her role facilitating teacher training camps which are held in August and the goal here was to set the tone for the academic year. Importantly, this training camp was informed by analysis of the previous school year—basically, this entailed identifying needs, interests and weaknesses. Thus, PD was intentionally designed to address the latter concerns. She explained that this role required a lot of reading and studying on her part. The teachers’ feedback served as positive reinforcement and as a source of motivation; this exemplified the reciprocal relationship with the school leaders and teachers. Here Heather reflected on a conversation with the science teacher: ‘She’s like that’s why I am able to be a good teacher is because of the teacher training’ (Interview 1). Heather also identified some of the challenges with PD which she attributed to unmotivated teachers who were sometimes resistant but who needed the most help. Finally, while it was clear that both school leaders addressed administrative and logistical issues, it is noteworthy that this role was not prominent in their discussion during the interviews. While Ilene highlighted that the roles of principal and vice principal were not

114 |


fixed—they alternated accordingly—not much was said about their roles related to the logistics and managing the day to day operations of the school: So we’re an interesting school in terms of how our administration is structured because we are three administrations with different roles, but many of our roles overlap … but we are always working very closely, Heather and I, in terms of all administrative decisions. (Interview 1) In this regard, the school leaders found it more beneficial to engage with roles that more directly served student learning. Broadly, the school leaders viewed the curriculum as all-encompassing and articulated that ‘we wrap our curriculum around them [students]’ (Heather, Interview 1). The curriculum addressed both formal classroom learning and applied learning. In this regard, school leaders understood that what they were creating was a culture of learning that facilitated ‘opportunities’ for learning: ‘When they see me … they know that I am going to propose something outside of their classroom experience … I have a wall that I call the wall of opportunities’ (Interview 1). Related to formal classroom learning, school leaders also addressed the important role of assessment. Given their push for multifaceted academic experiences—the inclusion of both formal and applied learning—the school leaders addressed the importance of mastery as opposed to singular focus on grade point average. In one example, Heather indicated that an 82 percentile in Math reflects a passing grade but content mastery may reveal some deficiencies. She argued that assessment should be more holistic. Getting teachers to understand and apply this methodology required significant effort. In terms of applied learning, the objectives focused on apprenticeship opportunities where students could learn usable skills. Heather explained that applied learning provided an opportunity for a personalised learning plan. The main goal was to help students think about career options and how to succeed in the workplace or formal education. For example, Heather described Stefan’s improved confidence after apprenticing with a trained electrician which also resulted in a paid job: ‘and so he came back Friday beaming because the apprenticeship meeting happened, he’s gonna do that every Friday as part of applied learning’. The schedule was organised to allow a full afternoon of engagement with applied learning. The standard science curriculum followed the national curriculum. Science, in the context of SJA, focused on environmental education, marine biology and ecology. Ilene explained that their curriculum was weak in addressing disciplines such as chemistry and physics because of the lack of lab infrastructure and access to materials (chemicals) needed to address content. In comparison to chemistry and physics, students had access to ample natural resources (primarily aquatic: coral reef) to facilitate learning in biology, ecology, and marine biology. For example, students conducted ecology labs through evening and weekend internships with the fisheries department: ‘They can do the fishery department and do marine biology


│ 115

and conduct surveys of conch, fish, and eel and things like that.’ In this respect, they learned about ecological interdependence of various species of aquatic organisms. Scientific knowledge was thus very contextual. For school leaders, expectations for the STEM curriculum reflected the global urgency of preparing youth for STEM careers. While science and technology resources were limited in the context of schooling (e.g., lack of a science lab and equipment), technology and science inquiry experiences were provided through field-based investigations and school– community project-based experiences related to integrated science and ecology. Heather explained that there was a lot of excitement with the introduction of technology in the curriculum. For example, it was Ilene who learned about the ‘Hour of Code’ during a network Skype meeting and thus decided to offer this program in replacement of a previous curriculum. Heather explained that the previous curriculum, ‘Electronic Document Preparation Management’ was ‘just so boring’ and thus the ‘kids are not liking computers’. In response, the ‘Hour of Code’ course was installed. So, while the school did not have access to programming experts, the school leaders provided access to students via online programs such as Hour of Code, a curriculum available in California schools. This engagement with Hour of Code saw some success in the school: But when they have a purpose for it, then it makes that whole purpose in the realworld learning. Here’s an example, they won a certificate for innovation, doing a mobile app for mangrove restoration. Ilene reiterated ‘that with technology [coding] skills, students could stay in their own country, and yet have a living, sort of like an international scale business’ (Interview 1). Consistent with the above expectations for the STEM curriculum, enactment followed a blend of didactic modes of teaching with a focus on note taking and hands-on classroom activities and field investigations. For example, one classroom activity involved students bringing food sources from home and testing for fats. In a second example, students were involved in a field activity to explore field-sampling techniques used by biologists to estimate population. This involved going out into the field to identify and tag soldier crabs in order to estimate the population of these crabs in a protected nature reserve near to the school campus. Students worked collaboratively in groups for about 40 minutes completing this activity. Both examples of STEM enactment reflected contextual understandings of scientific phenomena. Teachers and students reflected that their school and leaders encouraged innovative modes of teaching and learning. Students’ reflections on their experiences and interest in science class revealed two themes related to (a) learning about their natural environment (different ecosystems), and (b) access to opportunities. For example, Marie explained that she enjoyed biology because she grew up, literally, across the street from the ocean and thus she enjoyed learning about different ecosystems: ‘we learn about the different ecosystems with the mangroves that help keep [prevent] erosion, and they are also habitats for all the baby fishes, conch and lobsters …’

116 |


(Interview 1). Students also reinforced this notion of opportunities in their interviews. For example, Lara noted that as an immigrant to Belize, she was grateful for the opportunity to access education and resources in Belize. In fact, she chided native Belizeans for not taking advantage of the opportunities afforded by the school and good teachers. Similarly, Brian noted: ‘This high school is filled with opportunities … it [the school] opens opportunities not only for me but also for other students’ (Interview 1).

Discussion Heather and Ilene did not have any formal training in school administration. As a result, their process for managing Social Justice Academy was fluid with a continuous renegotiation of leadership roles. Both leaders indicated that their roles shifted as the needs of the school evolved. The roles of principal and vice principal were not fixed with both Heather and Ilene alternating between both roles at different points in time. Mitchell, Armstrong and Hands (2017: 8) documented that the transition to administration is often ‘fraught with structural uncertainty’ because of the lack of defined roles. In contrast, the context of SJA, a new and evolving school in a high needs environment, provided a space to identify other more relevant and appropriate roles which aligned with the specific needs of the school. Hutton’s (2016) work suggests that this transitory nature of roles may be related to the democratisation and decentralisation of decision making among school leadership. SJA was for the most part an autonomous unit that intentionally expanded its curricular scope beyond the demands of a national curriculum (as mandated by the Ministry of Education). Indeed, both school leaders emphasised roles that were aligned with student learning and community linkages (specifically ecotourism) and applied learning with local economic implications. In this regard, the following main roles dominated the discussion: engage in student recruitment; facilitate opportunities for access to school and community-based experiences; prepare students to contribute to the economics of their community (e.g., tourism); provide professional development for teachers; and, address administrative and logistical issues. The impact of high quality leadership on school success and significant positive student outcomes has been well documented (Miller 2016; Wahlstrom et al. 2010). The Wallace foundation (2013: 6) reported that successful schools are built around ‘leaders of learning who can develop a team delivering effective instruction’. Our findings reinforced that the teamwork between Heather and Ilene was significant in making decisions about student learning. The absence of fixed roles in this context allowed both leaders to advocate for shared goals related to the school. Here we acknowledge that this interplay may have worked because of the small student population and also the fact that this school is still in its formative development. Nevertheless, the shared goals of recruiting and preparing students for economic opportunities in their community were significant. Wahlstrom et al. (2010) provided evidence that collective leadership informed decision making and trust building between teachers and school principals. Subsequently, the outcomes were achievement gains for students. It is notable that much of this success occurred in the contexts of formal learning


│ 117

where the emphasis was on structures and opportunities for teacher collaboration. The current study departed from this traditional approach and instead reports on understandings of school leader roles that address more applied learning (coupled with formal learning) and community engagement. This contribution is important as we examine how notions of ‘success’ and ‘achievement gains’ are conceptualised in different contexts (Chisolm 2017). In effect, this leadership style reflected a sensitivity to the needs of the local community and its people (Earley 2013). Miller (2016) examined this notion of what successful and effective leadership look like in the Caribbean. He contrasted what school leaders know versus what they do in practice. The consensus suggested that school leaders were performing above what they actually knew in terms of leadership theory: ‘It shows that principals are doing what works, pointing to a form of “on the ground” approach to leadership which highlights the role of experiential learning’ (p. 89). The current study reinforced this idea of experiential learning where the school leaders sought to create a culture of learning that was intentional about students’ backgrounds and the knowledge they bring to the school and classroom space. While Miller did not expound on what teachers were actually doing in his study, our study highlights leadership roles that reflect an ‘on the ground’ approach. More specifically our contributions describe specific roles related to recruitment and setting up and identifying community partners for site-based applied learning (see Chisolm 2017 for more detailed information). The school leaders in this case study were thus responsive to the socio-political, economic, human, geopolitical and cultural needs of their school and community. STEM implementation and enactment at SJA did not follow a traditional, formal education approach. Instead, there was a specific emphasis on technology (coding), integrated science, marine biology, ecology and environmental education in the context of applied and experiential learning. While Stefan’s apprenticeship opportunity with an electrician involved some applied physics knowledge and skills, most of the experiences were related to scuba diving, fly fishing and mangrove protection. School leader Ilene stated her passion for marine biology and on the job training and more specifically how this knowledge informed students’ agency and understandings of the ecological value of their environment. Given these applied experiences, science knowledge was contextualised and connected with real case scenarios. One could argue that this approach to STEM learning was more meaningful. The nature of STEM learning at SJA was consistent with Bybee’s (2013) discussion of what makes STEM reform different from other education reforms. Themes related to global challenges, changing perceptions of environmental and associated problems and recognising 21st century workforce skills were prominent areas of focus in the STEM curriculum. The context and goals of applied learning reinforced youth civic engagement and agency about their marine environment. Essentially, if students understood the value of their natural resources and the potential threat that climate change poses on these resources, then they were more likely to engage in sustainable development. The school leaders also promoted opportunities for students to obtain ‘just in time’, 21st century knowledge and workforce skills

118 |


with their science and technology formal and informal experiences (NGSS Lead States 2013). For example, ‘The Hour of Code’ course resulted in immediate application as students developed apps to promote understandings about mangroves. Expanding students’ exposure through national competitions (the app competition) also served to communicate the applicability of this technology in real case scenarios. Essentially students engaged in problem solving, communication, self-management and systems thinking (Bybee 2013; NGSS Lead States 2013). What this case illustrates is that models of STEM teaching and learning can be realised in different forms (Waight & Abd-El-Khalick 2011). We remain cognisant of the limitations of the lack of science labs and sophisticated equipment. However, this study provided evidence that labs can extend beyond the walls of classroom spaces. What is more, the nature of the applied experiences was sufficiently meaningful to overcome other structural limitations. The commitment on behalf of the school leaders ensured this realisation. In their discussion, Lochmiller and Acker-Hocevar (2016) noted that most of the literature has treated leadership practice across content domains uniformly. However, this linear approach ignores the knowledge, skills, resources and training that teachers require in order to be successful and effective in STEM. We argue that STEM teaching and learning should reflect the repertoire of practices that engender science, technology, engineering and math domains. These practices should reflect process and the habits of mind related to inquiry-based practices and include conceptual knowledge. For science education, Linn, Clark and Slotta (2003: 518) defined inquiry as ‘engaging students in the intentional process of diagnosing problems, critiquing experiments, distinguishing alternatives, planning investigations, revising views, researching conjectures, searching for information, constructing models, debating with peers, communicating to diverse audiences, and forming coherent arguments’. What this means is that support for science, technology and math teachers extends beyond simply creating conditions that facilitate collaborative exchanges. Instead, school leaders also need to be immersed in the pedagogical practices that promote these innovative forms of teaching. The critical question here is, how do we prepare school leaders to be actively involved in STEM domains of learning where they do not hold expertise? In this study, both school leaders created a STEM culture of learning which was also emulated by the science and technology teacher. In the school leadership literature, the common approach is to defer to math and science departments’ defined instructional agenda and curriculum (Lochmiller & Acker-Hocevar 2016). Heather and Ilene’s approach departed from this traditional format; they identified the conditions for science and technology learning and thus spearheaded the efforts for applied learning. For example, it was Ilene who learned about the ‘Hour of Code’ during a network Skype meeting and thus decided to offer this program in replacement of a previous curriculum. This example illustrated that the school leaders were attentive and responsive to the interests and needs of their students. As a result, their curriculum reflected an intentional goal (in this case the global benefit of coding) of addressing 21st century skills. This model of implementation was relevant given the context


│ 119

of the school and the community. While the efforts by school leaders are commendable, it is important to highlight that there is still unexplored STEM potential for students. Case in point: the current discourse related to climate change and its impact on the coral reef ecology is significant to Belize and the Blue Cove location. Students would thus benefit from engaging in authentic inquiry that can inform the development of habits of mind that would be necessary for students to be successful in STEM domains at the college and higher education level. While a few students were in fact following this trajectory, the main goal of the curriculum was to allow students to be economically successful with a secondary education.

Recommendations Researchers have established that if content disciplines and school culture are linked, then departmental subculture is also linked to leadership (Lochmiller & Acker-Hocevar 2016). Thus, the quality of STEM teaching should be a direct reflection of the school leaders. At a time when ethnic and racially marginalised students remain underrepresented in STEM, it is critical that more attention be given to the roles of school leaders. More specifically, more research is needed to understand the various models of implementation and enactment in high needs schools. In what ways do these models promote or detract student interest in STEM fields? Maltese and Tai (2011) found that the majority of students who chose STEM fields did so at the high school level and specifically, these choices were based on growing interest in math and science and not necessarily enrolment or achievement. This suggests that school leaders need to be aware of the current STEM reforms, create conditions for optimal enactment of reform, and be proactive with innovative approaches. Research has also documented the limitations of the lack of STEM content background among school leaders. Lochmiller and Acker-Hocevar (2016) reported that principals were aware of the need to improve math and science, however, they lacked the requisite content knowledge to address the challenges. Thus, more attention needs to be focused on principal training and specifically, instructional leadership needs to be differentiated based on the needs of the specific disciplines. This brings to bear the nature of school leadership training and the need to institute new practices. At this juncture, it is important to examine higher education programs that are doing the important work of principal preparation. In the context of Belize, more research is needed to understand the roles of a broader repertoire of secondary school principals—those that work in schools similar to SJA and more established schools. It would be important to understand how ‘on the ground’ school leadership is enacted in these different contexts. In addition, research on the nature and enactment of STEM could offer further insight on the cultural relevance of curricular and pedagogical practices. In terms of practice, the emerging model of school leadership and STEM enactment at SJA offer opportunities to engage alternative approaches to STEM implementation. Essentially, this approach may be applicable in schools that have access to

120 |


environmental or community resources that augment the STEM teaching and learning opportunities.

References Bairaktarova, D., Cox, M. F., & Evangelou, D. (2011). Leadership training in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education in Bulgaria. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(6), 585594. Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation’s local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 375-395. Brown, R., Brown, J., Reardon, K., & Merrill, C. (2011). Understanding STEM: Current perceptions. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(6), 5-9. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press. Chisolm, L. D. (2017). Social Justice Leadership that Matters: An evaluation of school leadership practices in a high-need secondary school in Central America-Belize. Published doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo. Chisolm, L., Waight, N., & Jacobson, S. (2018 – in press). School Leadership for Social Justice and STEM: Findings from a case study of a secondary school in Belize. In E. Murakami, D. Gurr & R. Notman (Eds.), Leadership, Culture and School Success in High-Need Schools (pages to be confirmed). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Earley, P. (2013). Foreword. In P. Miller (Ed.), School Leadership in the Caribbean: Perceptions, practices, paradigms. Didcot: Symposium Books. Glesne, C. (2010). Becoming Qualitative Researchers (4th ed.). New York, NY: Longman. Hutton, D. M. (2016). Caribbean Perspectives. In P. Pashiardis & O. Johansson (Eds.), Successful School Leadership: International perspectives (pp. 81-91). London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Illich, I. (1973). Tools for Conviviality. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Jacobson, S., & Day, C. (2007). The International Successful School Principal Project (ISSPP): An overview of the project, the case studies and their contexts. International Studies in Educational Administration, 35(3), 3-10. Krathwohl, D. R. (1998). Methods of Educational and Social Science Research: An integrated approach. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley. Lewis, K. (2000). Colonial Education: A history of education in Belize. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538. Lochmiller, C. R. (2016). Examining administrators’ instructional feedback to high school math and science teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 75-109. Lochmiller, C. R., & Acker-Hocevar, M. (2016). Making sense of principal leadership in content areas: The case of a secondary math and science instruction. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(3), 273-296.


│ 121

Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students. Science Education, 95(5), 877-907. McGinnis, J. R., Kramer, S., Shama, G., Graeber, A. O., Parker, C. A., & Watanabe, T. (2002). Undergraduates’ attitudes and beliefs about subject matter and pedagogy measured periodically in a reform-based mathematics and science teacher preparation program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 713-737. Miller, P. (2016). Caribbean Perspectives. In P. Pashiardis & O. Johansson (Eds.), Successful School Leadership: International perspectives (pp. 81-91). London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Ministry of Education, Youth, Sports, and Culture. (n.d.). Abstract of Education Statistics 2012/13. Policy and Planning Unit, Ministry of Education: Belize (retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.bz/wpfd_ file/abstract-of-education-statistics-2012-2013/). Mitchell, C., Armstrong, D., & Hands, C. (2017). ‘Oh, is that my job?’ Role vulnerability in the viceprincipalship. International Studies in Educational Administration, 45(1), 3-18. Museus, S. D., Palmer, R. T., Davis, R. J., & Maramba, D. (Eds.) (2011). Racial and ethnic minority students’ success in STEM education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 36(6), 1-152. Naslünd-Hadley, E., Alonzo, H., & Martin, D. (2013). Challenges and Opportunities in the Belize Education Sector. Inter-American Development Bank (retrieved from https://publications.iadb.org/ bitstream/handle/11319/5926/Challenges%20and%20Opportunities%20in%20the%20Belize%20Educatio n%20Sector.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y). National Research Council. (2011). National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Pacey, A. (1983). The Culture of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Seidman, I. E. (2013). Interviewing as Qualitative Research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Smith, L. K., & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Reforming practice or modifying reforms?: Elementary teachers’ response to the tools of reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 396-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20165 Stake, R. E. (2000). Case Studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980. The Statistical Institute of Belize. (2013). Belize Population and Housing Census Country Report 2010 (retrieved from http://sib.org.bz/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Census_Report_2010.pdf). van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158. Veal, W. R., Lloyd, M. E., Howell, M. R., & Peters, J. (2016). Normative beliefs, discursive claims, and implementation of reform-based science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(9), 1419-1443. Wahlstrom, K. L., Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning: Executive summary of research findings. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2011). From scientific practice to high school science: Transfer of scientific technologies and realizations of authentic inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 37-70.

122 |


Wallace Foundation. (2013). The School Principal as Leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning. Seattle, WA: Wallace Foundation. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Zacharias, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in Physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 792-823.

Author Details Noemi Waight University at Buffalo, SUNY Email: [email protected] Lorenda Chisolm University at Buffalo, SUNY Email: [email protected] Stephen Jacobson University at Buffalo, SUNY Email: [email protected]


│ 123

How Principals Lead High Needs Schools in Mexico Celina Torres-Arcadia, César Rodríguez-Uribe and Gabriela Mora

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to examine school leadership practices in challenging contexts. Almost 58 per cent of schools in Mexico operate in conditions of marginalisation, and there are few studies that address this problem. This research focused on educational leadership in high needs schools in Mexico. Utilising the research protocols of the International School Leadership Development Network, principals, teachers, students and parents were interviewed from three Mexican inner-city elementary school cases. Findings indicated that high needs school principals used common practices to overcome the internal and external deficiencies in which they operate. Common practices were related to promoting order and discipline, clarifying the roles and rules, adapting to the context, managing external support, and developing self-esteem and sense of belonging. Keywords: High needs schools, principal leadership, basic education

Introduction Improving equity in education and reducing school failure is important because it damages social cohesion and mobility, and imposes additional costs on public budgets to deal with the consequences, such as higher spending on public health and social support and greater criminality, among others (OECD 2012). According to The National Institute for the Evaluation of Education (known in Spanish as INEE), the Mexican educational system has two basic and complementary objectives: first, to establish in its students those skills, knowledge and attitudes fundamental to economic development; second, to reduce inequity and achieve intergenerational social mobility (INEE 2007). Unfortunately, those goals are marginally fulfilled. In this paper, we analyse three basic school cases situated in different cities in Mexico. The selected cases are representatives of the north, west and south of Mexico: Sonora, Jalisco and Yucatán, respectively. These three cases all share challenging internal and external conditions, as do 58 per cent of schools in Mexico (INEE 2015) since 46.2 per cent of the Mexican population are living in poverty and 34 per cent of the population are declared vulnerable due to social deficiencies or insufficient income (CONEVAL 2017). Given the level of

124 |


inequality in Mexico, and the unequivocal role of education as a means to overcome inequity by offering mobility opportunities, it can be argued that the role of the school leaders should include an orientation to social justice. Whilst much is known about successful principals (Day 2007; Day & Leithwood 2007), and how principals are important in turning around low-performing schools (Duke 2012; Finnigan 2012; Ylimaki, Jacobson & Drysdale 2007), few studies have examined leadership in Mexican high needs schools, and the principals’ practices to address the lack of resources and the centralised policies that do not belong to the reality in which they operate. Moral, GarcíaGarníca and Martínez-Valdivia (2017) argue the necessity of developing a model to clarify how the school overcomes inequality in order to achieve understandings of these complex environments. In this sense, it is useful to conduct research about the role of the Mexican school principal in challenging contexts and what their practices are in order to counter the processes of inequality. Contributing to knowledge about leadership in high needs schools, this research is conducted according to the objectives and methodologies of the International School Leadership Development Network (ISLDN – https://isldn.weebly.com). The ISLDN has described a conceptual framework in order to expose how the particularities of micro context (school and community) are shaped by macro context (education system and socio-political discourse) within a broader global context that frames the international discourse about education (Barnett & Stevenson 2015). Aligned with the ISLDN framework, the following literature review explores first the international perspective of leadership for social justice and leadership in high needs schools and the implications for the Mexican context.

Literature Review The literature review is organised in three sections. The first one is about educational leadership for social justice. This theoretical concept gives a general framework to explore inequity in education and their consequences at the micro and macro levels. The second theme is about high needs schools in the recognition that these schools, which serve the poorest and more marginalised population, usually are chronically low-performing schools, so they perpetuate the inequity that is supposed to be reverted. In the third and last theme, a brief exposition about the Mexican education system and the social and economic composition of the population is addressed.

Educational Leadership and Social Justice According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), education equity is composed of two dimensions: fairness and inclusion (Field, Kuczera & Pont 2007). Fairness means that children achieve their educational potential no matter what the social circumstances are, such as gender, ethnic origin, socio-economic status, immigration status, among others. Inclusion means that everyone can achieve a ‘minimum


│ 125

standard of education for all (OECD 2012: 29), for example, the capability to read, to write and do simple arithmetic can be considered the basic base for all human beings. Consequently, a just education system should support their students to overcome obstacles in order to obtain educational success. According to the OECD equality paradigm, all individuals must always receive the same treatment. But, according to the equity framework, individuals have different needs and therefore deserve a differentiated treatment for eliminating or reducing the inequality. Therefore, a social justice in education view must tend to equity (Bolívar 2012). Thus, the Regional Office of Education for Latin America and the Caribbean of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (OREALC-UNESCO) adopted the concepts of equality and differentiation (UNESCO 2009) as the basis of the definition of educational equity. Differentiation is related to justice because although all people have the same opportunities to exercise their rights, education must be differentiated in order to address the needs of each individual derived for their personal conditions (INEE 2016). Traditionally, the school is considered as the opportunity provider for the society, and allows the integral development of their members as well as providing the means to live a dignified and equitable life. It is the goal of a just school to reduce discrimination and exclusion of students, so that all achieve full participation and learning regardless of their starting situation or reference context (Hernández-Castilla, Ramírez & Farran 2013). However, being that schools are a reflection of the society, ‘which includes multiple cultural identities and a range of connections to social power based on historical, political, and economic factors’ (Khalil & Brown 2015: 80), the equity and social justice dimensions of schools have become more complex. Bolivar (2012: 11) notes, ‘if the school in modernity was the main institution to achieve equality of opportunity through the merit and effort of individuals, far from any social conditioning, we have now stopped believing in such a device.’ This assertion seems to be well-founded when it is found that schools in the disadvantaged context do not offset the challenges students are faced with, and may even amplify the negative effects of the disadvantaged context because of a failure to compensate (OECD 2012). In many cases, what happens in schools serving particularly vulnerable sectors is that they have lower resources than those operating in better conditions, which, instead of counteracting social inequalities, contributes to increasing them (Martínez 2012). Despite the contradictions and difficulties of education systems as a promoter of opportunities, it is still the school’s role to promote equity, because students excluded from the education system are excluded from the labour market (Bolívar 2012). The high individual and societal costs related to school failure are reflected in higher spending on public health and social support (OECD 2012), so it makes economic sense to invest in providing a quality education rather than paying for the consequences of not having it. According to Morvaridi (2008: 2), developing countries have to look for equity rather than poverty reduction, because ‘poverty is grounded in inequalities’. That is, development presupposes access to opportunities where the individual can freely choose what they want to be or do according

126 |


to their values (Sen 2009). Therefore, removing inequities that limited human capacities should be an essential part of educational leadership for social justice.

High Needs Schools and Leadership for Social Justice Education inequity can be analysed in the term called High Needs Schools; however, the concept varies according to the approach from which it is addressed and the context in which it is analysed. Weldon (2012) refers to risk factors that include students with limited learning opportunities; poor support for home learning; as well as limited financial and technological resources; inadequate housing; frequent exposure to violence and poor nutritional habits. In general, Barnett and Stevenson (2015) argue that schools of high needs are those in contexts of poverty, social, economic and linguistic inequality. It is precisely in this context of schools with high needs that it is necessary to have school leaders whose capacity to transform the school favour an environment where the values of inclusion, justice, democracy and participation live. In recent decades, there has been substantial evidence that educational leadership has a significant but indirect effect on student learning (Klar & Brewer 2013; Leithwood & Jantzi 2000; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom 2004; Tapia-Gutiérrez, Becerra-Peña, Mansilla-Sepúlveda & Saavedra-Muñoz 2011). Because of the importance of principals, studies have emerged about the role of the principals of high needs schools, and how they ensure the learning of all the students, from a perspective of equity and inclusion (Bennett & Murakami 2016; Gurr, Drysdale, Clarke & Wildy 2014; Notman 2015). Beyer (2012) noted that school leaders have the capacity to promote educational and social opportunities for all students regardless of their origin and context. School leaders, in the exercise of their functions, have the possibility to facilitate integration, inclusion and cohesion in the school (Hernández-Castilla et al. 2013). Given that prerogative, they could be a key factor to exercise social justice in the educational field. Wang (2015) found that equity is a main theme in principals’ perceptions about social justice. Their questing for equity informed their everyday practice and also their vision for the future because, [T]hey anticipate their students will become critical citizens who can actively engage in forms of social learning and expand their capacity for empathy, compassion, respect, and solidarity. … [and] the students themselves become social justice agents contributing to creating a socially just world that embraces, celebrates, and respects social diversity. (Wang 2015: 678) Therefore, school is not only a key place to exercise social justice for equity for the students, it is a place to learn to be an agent of social justice in the future society. School leadership for social justice is leadership that is focused on critical reflection and transformation of the dynamics and situations in favour of a just school. Regarding the leadership models, there is no evidence of monolithic or exclusive management practices for social justice (Hernández-Castilla et al. 2013), maybe because school leadership for social


│ 127

justice has to be not only what happens within the educational organisations themselves, but also what happens outside of them, both in the communities of which they are part, and on a broader level, in the educational policies (González 2014). The combination of all these environments provides a unique landscape where the principal develops a particular agenda looking for ways to promote equity. These challenging circumstances demand that the principal has a larger set of political, intra- and inter-personal and organisational qualities, strategies and skills in order to be successful (Day 2014). In England, Day found that principals in disadvantaged communities use greater combinations of strategies and a large range of personal and social skills than the principals who serve schools in communities without disadvantages. This suggests the need to train principals according to the demands of specific environments. Kemp-Graham (2015) argued that even though studies demonstrated that effective school leadership in challenging contexts is exercised with a focus on social justice, there are no training programs to prepare principals to be social justice school leaders. For example, Gurr et al. (2014) found that for leaders of high needs schools, there are some important developmental areas such as: building personal resilience; developing wider knowledge of what works for school success; focusing on the development of staff; acquiring and distributing resources effectively and efficiently. Leadership in high needs schools would require, in addition to the above practices, the presence of certain values and principles for inclusion and social justice, such as ‘concern for the common good, participation, justice, equity, respect for the value and dignity of individuals and their cultural traditions’ (Murillo, Krichesky, Castro & Hernández 2010: 177). The complexity of the diversity of students due to their culture, ethnicity, socio-economic status, impoverished environments and violence often leads to poor performance in schools and low expectations (Bolívar, López & Murillo 2013; Murillo et al. 2010; Theoharis 2007). Therefore, school leaders need to be capable of ‘propitiating, supporting and facilitating relevant pedagogical improvements in order to transform situations such as those indicated and promote a good education, fair, equitable, that guarantees good learning for all students’ (González 2014: 98).

The Mexican Education System and Social Justice The legal and philosophical framework of Mexican education emanates from Article 3 of the Constitution where it states: ‘The State guarantees quality in compulsory education so the organization school, educational infrastructure and the suitability of teachers and principals should be ensured the maximum achievement of learners’ (DOF 2013: art. 3º). However, there is a significant gap between what emanates from laws and what is practiced. In Mexico, inequality prevails in schools due to a lack of basic resources to operate under optimum conditions (INEE 2007). Below is some relevant information that explains the state of the education system in Mexico. The National Education System currently serves 35.2 million children and young people. Basic education represents 73.4 per cent, and around 1.2 million teachers work in these levels

128 |


of the educational service in almost 228,000 schools. The terminal efficiency of the basic education is low: for every 100 children that enter primary schools, only 76 complete secondary schools on time and form (SEB 2014). Though access to basic education seems not be a problem, quality is a big issue. In PISA tests, Mexican academic performance is below the OECD average, for example, 42 per cent of students do not reach the minimum reading competence (OECD 2015). In Mexico, the basic education service is mainly public since only 12.4 per cent is provided by private schools (INEE 2016). There are different types of schools that offer the educational service with a differentiated organic structure in its internal context. The Mexican education system is highly centralised. In general, the educational plans and programs are similar, but there are some variations according to the school type, its purpose, the age and the needs of the students, and the geographic location. The schools operate according to students’ ages, from pre-school to the higher level. But schools that are in remote regions of Mexico, where the most vulnerable students of the country are found, are known as multigrado schools (more than one grade teaching for one, two or three teachers) (INEE 2016). The schools that migrant populations attend are of another type. There are children and adolescents from families that travel through the country looking for agricultural labour. These children are the most vulnerable group of students and the teachers who support this program are vulnerable too, because they are hired under a temporary contract, which means that they do not have social welfare benefits (INEE 2017). Because educational quality cannot be understood separately from the concept of equity, the Mexican General Education Law (LGE) establishes that quality is the congruence between the education system objectives, results and processes (INEE 2016). Nonetheless, unless the education processes address the high poverty rates, the marked inequalities will continue to be perpetuated. Unfortunately, in the Mexican context, as in other regions of Latin America, the educational system does not guarantee for all students the timely income, the uninterrupted trajectory, or the timely completion of their studies (Calderón 2017). Evaluations reveal the deficiency and inequality with which the education system is operating since there are abysmal educational gaps between students in the same grade level, which can be more than four school years (INEE 2007). Factors affecting student performance have already been studied, clearly distinguishing the factors corresponding to the social and economic conditions of the students’ family and those corresponding to the education service. In order to provide a background about these factors, information is presented in these two themes.

Social and Economic Conditions of the Students’ Families The National Survey on Discrimination 2010 (ENADIS 2011) revealed that people feel discriminated because of not having money, educational opportunities, gender, and ethnicity, and these perceptions are higher the lower the socio-economic level is. So, discrimination in Mexico is an important issue to address since 46.2 per cent of the Mexican population are


│ 129

living in poverty and 34 per cent of the population declared themselves vulnerable due to social deficiencies or insufficient income (CONEVAL 2017). Additionally, 10.43 per cent of the population are indigenous-speaking, and 76.1 per cent of these people are living in poverty. Indigenous populations are one of the historically most discriminated groups in the country. The variance of the Mexican students’ performance in basic education is explained by 65 per cent of the differences between students and the 35 per cent by the differences between schools (INEE 2007). The data analysis shows that the more marginalised the communities are, the lower the levels of student achievement are. These outcomes are consistently recorded in literacy and mathematics, both in the last year of primary and the last year of secondary school (INEE 2016). Students living in unfavourable circumstances in their homes and communities are cared for in schools with the greatest deficiencies, so, instead of the school compensating for the disadvantages of the students, the school contributes to reaffirm it and even sharpen it (INEE 2007). Regarding the unfavourable conditions at home to support academic performance, Martinez (2012) reported shortcomings related to nutrition, health, parental support, books at home, educational toys, among other resources. In addition to the lack of resources at home, some students report work outside their homes. Of the 6th grade of primary, 56.3 per cent of students and 43.2 per cent students of the 3rd grade of secondary said they perform at least two hours of some activity called work each day (INEE 2007). Murillo and Román (2014) found that child labour negatively affects school performance and that such performance becomes even lower among those who receive payment in cash for the work done. Obviously, the labour market conditions have an impact upon students’ educational performance (OECD 2012) because the opportunity to earn money to improve the family economic situation encourages young people to leave school early (European Commission 2013). Early admission of youngsters to the informal labour market could certainly have an impact on improving the family income levels in the short term, however, in the medium and long term this effect is reversed (INEE 2007) because school dropout predicts a precarious insertion in the adult working market (Murillo & Román 2014).

The Quality Level of the Education Services Contrary to what laws and policies dictate, the characteristics and conditions of educational services provided by the Mexican State in the most vulnerable contexts reproduce and deepen social stratification. There is a clear association between the poverty of the environment and the poverty of the education supply. This is not a small problem since it is estimated that there are more than 127,000 (58 per cent) of primary and secondary schools operating in conditions of marginalisation (INEE 2015). Consequently, school conditions also produce inequality in educational outcomes. Those students in the most vulnerable contexts attend schools with the worst infrastructure and educational resources. It is especially precarious of the conditions under which the indigenous and multigrade primary schools operate, since school conditions

130 |


reflect the socio-economic vulnerability of the communities in which they work (INEE 2016). Given these schools’ marginalisation, it can be deduced that the poor school conditions translate into fewer students’ opportunities to overcome successfully the lack of resources in their family context. At this point, it is quite relevant to explain that schools have almost no autonomy or funds to allocate to the priorities derived from their context, because the resources are mostly assigned to staff salary, and schools receive additional funding primarily through a large number of programs (OECD 2010). For example, there are about 175 federal programs to support education (CONEVAL 2015). However, to have access to those economic supports requires additional work for the principals, since the process is usually highly bureaucratic and demanding. Blanco (2009) found that there is an administrative burden on all schools through the compulsory implementation of numerous programs, with these forcing the fulfilment of countless administrative requirements that take time from reflexive action and strategic planning. Due to the difficulties in accessing compensatory resources and the inadequacy of these to solve the deficiencies even when these are granted, it has been observed that the poorest communities often contribute more economic support to the schools than the rich communities. For example, they support the salaries of teachers or instructors, and even take over, at least in part, the construction of the school (INEE 2007). Additionally, school staff in Mexico are not well selected, prepared or supported to exercise their roles in high needs schools (INEE 2016). It is typical for the high poverty schools to have less qualified staff according to Ladd (2012), and teachers with less employment stability served the poorest population (INEE 2007). Less employment stability is an indicator of cultural disconnection between teachers and students, and cultural disconnection blocks teaching and learning in a classroom (Khalil & Brown 2015). As a consequence, these inequalities prevent education from fulfilling its role as equity promoter; in Mexico only a quarter of each generation reaches higher education (INEE 2007), which means that three quarters of each generation have less opportunities to develop their full capacity for a better life and a better contribution to the society.

Methods This study is part of the ISLDN High Needs Schools Strand (HNS). High needs schools in Mexico are characterised by a lack of basic educational resources (infrastructure, academic supplies, training staff, among others) to operate in optimum conditions (INEE 2017), generally serve communities that are poor and have low educational attainment (INEE 2016), and where students often have to work to pay for school expenses and/or support their family (INEE 2007). The study is based on case studies with multiple perspectives (Yin 2009), since it favours the understanding of complex social phenomena such as school leadership, particularly when it is exercised in vulnerable contexts. Individual semi-structured interviews with the principal (two interviews), individual semi-structured interviews with at


│ 131

least three teachers and support staff, one focus group with parents and a focus group with students were conducted to obtain the data. Semi-structured guides were used to conduct the interviews and focus groups. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The data analysis was conducted guided by the multiple case study analysis (Stake 2006). It consisted of categorisation of the data using an open coding system. The main categories were leadership practices and context impact according to the two questions that guided this investigation: 1. 2.

How do principals and other school leaders enhance individual and organisational performance in high needs schools? How do internal and external school contexts impact individual and organisational performance in high needs schools?

Triangulation was used so that the findings included in this report are supported by at least three confirmations in each case and across the cases. Finally, a member-checking technique was applied by asking the principals to confirm the accuracy of the findings and to note any possible misrepresentation.

Participants The selection of the schools was determined by the following criteria: a high percentage of individuals from families with incomes below the poverty line; a high percentage of historically/socially excluded groups; and a lack of access to basic physical infrastructures. The research included three public schools: two elementary schools and one secondary school. The primary school in Mexico is a 6-year program and is for children between 6 and 12 years old. The high school is a 3-year program after the primary program. The schools are located in cities of the states of Sonora, Jalisco and Yucatan representing north, central and south Mexico respectively. The students come from families of a very low socio-economic stratum, some of the parents are illiterate or with basic education, and the vast majority of them have temporary jobs with a long working day. From the social point of view, the community is affected by insecurity and violence, generated especially by drug dealing. They are located in areas with a lack of full public services; communication and public transportation is limited. Principals, teachers, support staff, parents and students participated in this research. Case 1 It is an afternoon shift primary school. It is located in an urban area of northern Mexico and has an enrolment of 510 students distributed in 18 groups with its respective teachers. Additionally, a physical education teacher, two cleaning staff and a team of the Support Services to Regular Education (USAER in its Spanish acronym) compose the staff. The principal is a female in her forties. She holds a Ph.D. degree in educational administration, has 20 years of experience as a teacher, which includes 14 years of principalship. For seven

132 |


years she was a principal interim in the modality of principal with group. She has been principal of this school for four years as headteacher, she was interim for a year and a half, but now she has a full time principal position. Case 2 It is a morning shift primary school. It is located in an urban area in central Mexico. It has an enrolment of 495 students in 14 groups, served by 14 teachers with an additional English teacher paid by parents and two physical education teachers. The school and the surrounding community are located in a non-optimal area for urbanisation. The school infrastructure is deteriorated. The principal is a female in her late fifties. She has 21 years working in the education system. She was promoted to be the principal two years before the study. Previously, she had the opportunity to take on the responsibilities of the managerial position, since the director of the school where she was a teacher withdrew and for a year she assumed responsibility while the new director was assigned. She studied in the school for teachers, and obtained a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology and a Master's Degree in Human Development. She is currently working on a Diploma in Educational Management. Case 3 It is a nocturnal shift small secondary school (70 students) that is located in a suburban area in southern Mexico. The students are 11-15 years old; most of the students work to help the family expenses and to fund their studies. There are six groups attended by 13 teachers and six administrative staff. The school infrastructure is unfinished, for example, some classrooms lack an adequate electrical installation to provide enough lighting. The principal is a male in his forties. He has been working in the education system for five years. He started performing principal functions with the post of commissioned principal, having been in three different schools that presented organisational problems. He finally acquired the position by examination according to the new legislation. He has a Bachelor's Degree in Social Sciences, Master’s and Ph.D. in Education Sciences.

Findings The study found that the school leaders are the drivers of required practices to address school problems. At the same time, they engage key actors, both inside and outside the school. In this sense, the findings generate five common practices which correspond to the five problems addressed by the principals as a priority: promoting order and discipline; clarifying the roles and rules; adapting to the context; managing external support; and developing selfesteem and sense of belonging. The practices are described and exemplified with informants’ quotes.


│ 133

Promoting Order and Discipline A segment of schools in poor sectors faces problems of ‘normalisation’ in the sense that neither teachers nor students meet the times of entry and exit of the school, that is to say that there is no minimum level of order and discipline, a situation which is pointed out by Raczynski and Muñoz (2007) as one of the main obstacles to achieving academic performance. Regarding order and discipline, principals expressed the need to close gaps in the behaviour of students, teachers and also parents. The concern to offer an integral education guided by the practice of values is reflected in the principals’ decision making to implement correctives and align situations that break the school organisation. Principals ensure that the decisions taken are meaningful and generate a state of mass consciousness, where all assume the co-responsibility of being in tune with the legal governing framework. Coexistence is the foundation to favour any other improvement, like one of the principals explains: There was a lot of violence at that time in school, the children beaten, the Red Cross did not leave here, angry parents with teachers and angry teachers with the principal. Then the first thing I had to do was to put order, because the healthy and peaceful coexistence is the base to any kind of improvement. (Principal C1) According to Antúnez (2004), the school guidelines promote the students’ acquisition of personal and social habits. Thus, by clarifying the rules of the school, changes in attitude are fostered. Although students’ academic performance has not yet succeeded in favouring all, there is a great improvement in their personal habits, urbanity rules and hygiene. Teachers exemplify how the discipline is applied and the consequences of this new environment: Regarding to the students’ misbehaviour, they have been treated with a bit more rigid regulations and this has made at least that the indiscipline problem has diminished. (Teacher C3) We are talking about that there must be urban rules within the classroom; we are seeing how this improves the learning. (Teacher C1) She goes beyond to solve students’ misbehaviour problems. We communicate to her the problem. She gives follow-up. She meets with parents. If the child needs additional educative support, she transfers the kid with the support team. She does not postpone the solution, avoiding the problem get worst. (Teacher C1) Regarding punctuality, an assistant, Ames, found that teacher absenteeism triggers the parents’ disinterest based on the lack of confidence that the teachers are there, with this promoting irregular student attendance. In this sense, a principal explains how the teachers’ behaviour affects student and parent behaviour: For example punctuality, what I did in the attendance register was to put it by degrees of punctuality, then when the inspector arrives can see the teacher attendance and the punctuality. I told the teachers – how you can demand that the

134 |


students arrive early when you did not arrive on time. Now, all teachers are arriving on time. (Principal C2) Exercising leadership in special situations due to the level of marginalisation and poverty in which these schools operate implies greater rigour when observing the non-compliance of the policies that ensure school functioning. These responses illustrate ways in which principals set standards and raise expectations for teachers and parents: Some teachers have always tried to counter the impulse that the majority want to be carried out. There are teachers who are absent, there is apathy at work, but the principal has tried to counter this behaviour applying a regulation that gives us the Ministry of Education to implement it as it is, because the rule applied for all. (Teacher C3) There have been occasions in which I have to make a report or discount from a teacher’s salary, to those who have not come to work. Whenever I have opportunity, as in this last occasion of the Technical Council, I try to sensitise them again, so they join the school’s work. (Principal C3) Sometimes the parents are nonconforming, but I tell them – I received a dirty school, the parents inside and the teachers outside – then they understood that is important to have control over permits, we have to do this out of conviction. (Principal C1)

Clarifying the Roles and Rules Besides setting behavioural expectations for students, teachers, and parents, specific protocols can be established according to the roles assigned to each member. Raczynski and Muñoz (2007) found that schools in poor sectors where no one knows who is in authority have lower effectiveness. In a school, the principal, teachers, administrative support staff, students and parents establish a relational system that is governed by a certain formalisation of normative rules and procedures (Antúnez 2004). The function separation empowers each one to perform accordingly with the responsibility of their post. The principals of the study clarify responsibilities to each member of the school, when they delimit its functions, they give focus to improve their tasks and avoid misunderstanding and confusion among them. The first thing that I see is in this school was the necessity to organise. The teacher to teach, the parents to theirs home, only at the time of entry, at the time of departure and when called or required by the school. Parents are not the ones who rule in the school, there is a government and they know so they have to arrive with good manners. (Principal C1) I think it’s a school where everyone knows what they have to do, ... and each one are willing to do it within their activities, because we know where we are going, we know what our improvement route is and we are going directed towards that goal. (Teacher C1)


│ 135

Principals communicate the roles and functions to each school member in order to facilitate the accomplishment of the pedagogical, administrative and social goals. The clarity of these roles and the observance of them gradually can increase the level of trust between members, with the understanding that everyone is doing their part. The establishment of trust promotes a positive school culture, where its members seek continuous improvement where changes are needed (Day et al. 2009). Everyone has been assigned his or her responsibilities, every teacher has activities to do, we all are clear what we have to do. There are assigned the scholar activities, the newspapers murals, all the activities are assigned. (Teacher C3) I noticed that the principal is checking teachers’ planning every two months. The last principal did not used to check it. Now if something is wrong they have to make the plan again. (Parent C1) I am the doorkeeper and it’s my second year on the parent’s board. The parents are upset because many times we do not let them pass according to the school rules. Parents are not allowed in the school when the teachers are in classes. The principal says that she can meet them after one-thirty if any dad or mom wants to talk, because she is checking that the students are inside the classrooms and checking that the teacher came, or if they didn’t come, asking the reason why. (Parent C1) I had to talk with the janitor because the school was not clean. I had to explain to him that he was not the principal’s assistant or principal, that he had been hired to clean the school, not that he is checking who has not arrived at school, that those duties did not correspond to him. (Principal C1)

Adapting to the Context Sun and Leithwood (2012) argue that context needs to be considered in order to explain the variation of leadership educational outcomes. In high needs schools, the context becomes relevant to school leaders when focusing on problems related to students and the school community. As a result, the leader can adapt the school’s requirements to meet the students’ reality (Furman 2004; Klar & Brewer 2013). Principals exhibited the ability to respond assertively to meet the needs of the context, without losing the focus on learning and the integral development of students. There are some examples of flexibility to preserve the rights and dignity of the community members: Regarding the change of schedule ... before we used to enter later, and we left very late, because sometimes we arrived very late to our house and it was dangerous to leave in the afternoon. (Student C3) I prefer that students be late and learn, to leave them outside and have to go home ... there are children who come alone and return alone and are in danger. (Principal C2) Another common strategy among leaders in the cases studied related to focusing on overcoming students’ shortcomings, and making the necessary curricular adaptations. One

136 |


principal explained that he made a diagnosis of the student needs and he found that they needed to focus on improving reading skills: We apply a test to find out who are the students that have the greatest need for improvement in reading. We started the project, with a module every week, where each teacher adjusts his didactic planning in order to implement the reading strategy. (Principal C3) As for the prioritisation of curricular content, it is clear that principals support teachers to provide spaces rich in meaningful learning experiences for their students. Several respondents reported how instruction is adjusted to meet students’ needs: This planning has to be thinking in the child, it has to be contextualised, let’s do it for the child. (Principal C1) When some topic applies for their life ... I dedicate myself to teach this topic until they learn them. Sometimes I am late with the programme, I can tell you that I’m not 100% according to my programme, but I feel good in what I am doing. (Teacher C3)

Managing External Support Day (2007: 19) describes ‘relational agency’ as the principal’s skills to work with a range of external actors in order to get resources to pursue the school’s objectives. In the Mexican context, managing connections could be one of the most important skills (Torres-Arcadia, Temblador-Pérez, Ruíz-Cantisani & Flores-Fahara 2013). The principal needs to manage the support and collaboration of government institutions and civil organisations to fulfil properly many shortcomings in school equipment and basic supplies. A practice deployed by the principals is to know how to move in the intricate bureaucratic network to manage material and academic resources, as this principal expressed: The government annually gives the school supplies for the children with economical necessities, but we have to ask for it because it does not come automatically, I have to look for contacts, do the arrangements to get the resources for school. (Principal C3) It is about connecting the school with its environment, generating networks of collaboration and support, involving government authorities, civil institutions, companies and altruistic foundations. The light went out in several classrooms and I asked for help to the City Council, and they came and they fixed it. It was something to support students, especially those with sight problems. (Principal C2) The teachers recognise that one of the successes in the leadership of the principal is to actively seek relationships with different external agents. A lot have commented on her leadership and management work, because she has been looking for resources here and there. She searches in several different areas to get some resources for the school improvement. (Teacher C2)


│ 137

Despite the poverty that characterises these communities, parents provide an important support to the school operation (INEE 2007). Trying to address the lack of school infrastructure is explained by one principal: Because some classrooms had very little lighting, we asked for the parents’ support, notwithstanding they have economic difficulties; they bought some lamps for the classrooms. But obviously these resources were not enough, we had to ask for support from the municipality. (Principal C3)

Developing Self-Esteem and Sense of Belonging Evidence was found that efforts were made by principals to motivate members of the school community through the development of self-esteem and sense of belonging. Beginning with the teachers, Day (2016) pointed out the relevance of strengthening the resilience through supporting teachers’ capacities as a practice to increase retention. Having stable teaching teams is an important issue regarding education quality, because of the time required to engage in the institution, increase identification with the community and school, and in particular, with the specific needs of the students (INEE 2007). As results are seen, teachers begin to feel they belong to the school; a commitment begins to be generated. (Principal C1) In the parents meeting comments are made about the boy so-and-so achieved such a thing thanks to his teacher so-and-so. It is very important to value and recognise the work of each one of both students and teachers. (Teacher C3) When, for example, an objective is achieved, something is achieved, a contest, maybe not necessarily the first place, the second place, it makes us feel good, it recognises our work both in the school and personally, recognises it, and well that is flattering. You see that someone recognises in your work, because that makes you feel good, and that gives you reasons to move forward, to improve. (Teacher C3) The expectations or perceptions that parents have about the academic possibilities of their children could influence their child’s academic performance (Fajardo, Campos, Castaño & del Barco 2017), so giving hope to the parents is a relevant practice. Bolívar and Chrispeels (2011) showed that it is important to include parents from disadvantaged groups in the school decision processes, and empowering them to have an active role in the education process of their own child. The principal let us know at a meeting about the money the school had received, asked us what we wanted and if we agreed on what he planned to do. The parents agreed, no father refused. And it is that the school needs a lot of things. (Parent C3) When my son arrived, he was happy – mama the teacher explained to us this, we did it at the school, I get better grades, the teacher rated the homework – I like to see him happy because in elementary school, he had suffered certain difficulties, he had not raised his grades. Here he has been advancing in terms of grades. (Parent C3)

138 |


Principals understand the challenges of parents and see the link with the school as an opportunity for training and recognition of the work done by parents despite their economic and social situations. Bolívar and Chrispeels (2011) argued that when parents from disadvantaged groups receive information and training that increases their social and intellectual capital, they can effect change in the educational system through their individual and collective actions. Involving parents could be one of the most important factors to improve school outcomes of students in challenging family circumstances (Handford & Leithwood 2013; Leithwood, Patten & Jantzi 2010). I talked to the parents and they listen to me. Sometimes they tell me – teacher believe me, that made us think – they tell me – and now, before sleep, I clean my house up, and my children help me, – I tell them, – I'm a trainer, I’m a true teacher, right? – So that tells me that they are noble people, that they are people that nobody has trained them. What we are doing are talks that go beyond the school, it is at the community level. (Principal C1) The students when they leave the school, they go home and talk with their parents – hey dad here I learned this! – Not only came to sit and listen to the teacher. They get knowledge no matter how small is, and also the parents know that we are doing various activities, because we integrated the family. It is not only the student learning in the school, also the parents have a place in the school. (Teacher C3) A particularly striking aspect is the extracurricular activities schools promote in the community, strengthening the sense of belonging of its members. Moral et al. (2017) found that school connection with the community is an important strategy to reinforce an optimistic vision toward improvement. This is shown in this quote from a teacher: We have participated in parades, with which we have been able to make known the school to the community. We want that the population realise that we exist. This is the principal’s idea and what he has tried to encourage and say –Yes, here we are. So, we have tried to participate in most of the events that have been organised. (Teacher C3) In Chile, Raczynski and Muñoz (2007) found the difficult context in which schools exist (poverty, urban deterioration, insecurity, drugs, delinquency) tends to favour a protective ‘social function’ for students rather than a focus on learning. In this sense, principals understand that the needs of children are not only academic, and are willing to offer them what they need in order that they overcome their situations. I cannot afford here to say – I am going to sit down to rest – because here is no rest. I tell the teachers – what are children asking for? Sweetie? Well, we have to give love to those children; all these children need love, look at them. (Principal C1) There is a student who made it to the mathematics Olympics. He is a very poor student, who needs our support, emotionally, economically, he is very poor, he works, now he stopped coming, but we are going to visit him, it is a pity that we lost him, we


│ 139

already agreed with the director that tomorrow we are going to visit him to his home, he is very poor. (Support staff C3) Self-esteem of children who attend marginalised schools is a key factor that should be reinforced. Those who struggle at early stages but receive adequate, timely support and guidance have higher probabilities of finishing, despite any difficulties in their family or social background (OECD 2012). The principal tells us in the tributes if we do something right or he goes to the classrooms and also when there is a good group he congratulates us. (Student C3) I have seen that he [the principal] goes to the classrooms normally, giving some warning, but he always says something to motivate them. For example, in the Monday morning Flag Salute, he motivates when he says to us – We are like any school, we are not less – There are always some activity so that the boys will raise their self-esteem. (Teacher C3) The apathy, the nature that the student already has of not being able to say – I can get ahead, I can learn – I try to motivate them all the time – you are very important, you are worth it, you can be the mayor of the city. – They laugh, I do not know, they take it as a joke, but I tell them – you can be better than me, the goal is that you are better than your teacher. – The idiosyncrasies they have is feeling inferior. Because they need to work they see the school as something out of reach. (Principal C3) I want to tell the principal to keep working hard to get the school going, because if he leaves everything the way it is it can make things worse again. (Student C3)

Discussion To clarify what educational leadership for social justice means in the Mexican context, three cases were analysed. The principals of our cases show common practices in their search to undertake actions aimed at correcting inequities. The practices were grounded on the needs identified in the school communities. The five identified practices highlight the need to address basic issues in the search to achieve a platform on which it is possible to promote any type of academic achievement. The first two practices (promoting order and discipline and clarifying the roles and rules) give an account of the state of abandonment in which these schools have operated. Marking basic urban rules and avoiding misunderstandings about responsibilities and rights moved the will toward a harmonious coexistence. So, re-establishing the minimum order necessary to operate in a normal way would be on the agenda of a director in a high needs school. The school must be a safe place for the children but also for the teachers and parents, and an environment that promotes respect among the school community (Duke 2006; Ladd 2012; Ylimaki, Fetman, Matyjasik, Brunderman & Uljens 2017).

140 |


The next two practices (adapting to the context and managing external support) refer to the principals’ negotiating capacity. They negotiate with the community to adapt the school to its conditions, but without losing the essentials of its mission. Because many government regulations are designed for schools that operate under suitable conditions, it means the principal in challenging contexts has to adjust things to make sure that students are not disadvantaged. A clear example of these adjustments is when one of the principals realises that the level of reading comprehension of students at the secondary level is very low and begins a crusade to develop reading comprehension, even if it is not included in the curriculum of this educational level. The principal shows common sense, but also sensitivity to act in order to correct the lack that, if not addressed, disables other strategies to increase the academic performance of the students. Finding external support is a great burden for the principals in high needs schools, because almost everything is needed. They are not looking for strategic alliances to improve academic outcomes; they are looking for basic resources like electricity, and school supplies. Wang (2015) found that principals from high poverty schools were more concerned with resources and access equity. Unfortunately, while these resources are not automatically granted, the principals invest a lot of time administering external links to get them, instead of focusing on improving the academic aspects of the school. Despite this incongruity, when the principals obtain resources for the school to get some level of justice, they are sending a message of hope to reinforce a sense of community. According to Angelle (2017), fulfilling needs and emotional connections is a positive way to develop a sense of community in order to support marginalised students. Finally, the last practice is related to the biggest challenge: developing self-esteem and sense of belonging. The high levels of marginality that characterise these communities because of the historical discrimination mean it is a permanent task for the director to counteract that feeling of being inferior and unable to get out of poverty and marginalisation. Particularly in these complex situations, the principal is being called to be a moral leader (Rivera-McCutchen 2014), spreading their sense of justice through the school community. Because teachers, students and parents are affected by the same demoralised ideas about the improbabilities of success, principals need to reaffirm the sense that improvement is possible, even with a small action, such as when the students should be part of a scholar parade or when the parents were included in the school decision process. In this sense, the promotion of hopeful experiences could be part of the organisational development process (Luthans & Jensen 2002) allowing the school community to pursue goals under a positive environment. The common practices clearly fit the characteristics of the Mexican high needs schools. The practices try to fix the lack of basic educational resources (infrastructure, academic supplies, trained staff, among others), supporting students’ shortcomings (low educated and poor families) and their specific obstacles that, if avoided, can bring school success (for example, young labour). This is the reason why the cases analysed are useful to exemplify the implications to performance leadership for social justice in Mexican high needs schools. We


│ 141

believe that these results will generate a better understanding about how principals lead in the challenging context.

Conclusion The data analysed by the INEE (2016) show that it is possible to achieve good and even outstanding learning outcomes with all students, because there are such examples across all levels of education, types of school, areas of different degrees of marginalisation, and among all types of students. According to our findings, these outstanding academic results are possible because principals and school communities want to improve, as this principal explained: Here you have to work further, the area is very problematic, but I also realise that there is much strength within the same community, people who want the community to improve. (Principal C2) Unfortunately, the spontaneous commitment to improve may not be enough to turn around the inequity level. Principals can orchestrate the change, but sustaining school improvement requires focus for a time long enough to make a real difference (Okilwa & Barnett 2017). It is well known that an effective school can contribute to greater social justice (Bolívar 2012), but it could be difficult to achieve, because the educational policy makers see the lack of education success as a problem more of the context than of the school itself. This correlation could be more important for students in social and economic disadvantage because they generally attend disadvantaged schools. Thus, you would expect that ‘a central component of any policy agenda designed to address the needs of children from disadvantaged families is to assure that the schools such children attend are high quality’ (Ladd 2012: 222). It is then important to recognise that the students’ failure is a deficiency of the education system (OECD 2012), because it will change the motivation of educators and the whole system itself. Similarly, Ladd (2012) suggests that school quality should be defined in terms of how schools address the educational needs of their students. Likewise, Day (2007: 15) explains that educational effectiveness is associated with academic outcomes like standardised tests, but educational success is related in addition ‘to positive personal and social outcomes, wellbeing, and equity’. Academic evaluation does not convey the multilayered nature of education such as the will, persistence, motivation and self-concept of students (Formichella 2017). Our findings are consistent with these ideas in the sense that they explain how principals in high needs schools, because of the level of students in reduced circumstances, are attending to those important educational aspects even though they are not part of the curriculum. The consequence of this divorce between the educational agenda and the reality faced in schools in vulnerable contexts is the lack of recognition and support towards the principals that try to develop school community, self-esteem and sense of belonging. Although principals were naturally predisposed to support the goals of equity and justice because they assumed they had a moral commitment to do so (Theoharis 2008), the efforts are

142 |


not enough to overcome the state of marginalisation. School leaders need to develop an awareness of their social justice responsibility (Beyer 2012) and a broader focus than basic skill acquisition (Theoharis 2007). There are implications for leadership preparation programs, particularly for a country where more than half of their population is in poverty or suffer from the lack of social services. The probability to serve a school in a high needs condition is high, so there is a necessity to develop school leaders with an understanding of the moral urgency to provide high quality education (Goldfarb & Grinberg 2002) to those that have been historically deprived of it. In the programs to train principals, explicit focus on school leadership for social justice should be provided (Rivera-McCutchen 2014), including developing the skills to manage schools in such circumstances. In spite of the magnitude of the problem of school inequality in Mexico, there has been a lack of research on high needs schools, and there is not sufficient discussion about these schools amongst policymakers. A first step is to provide policymakers with a better understanding of high needs schools. It is understood that they serve vulnerable communities, but it is clear that the schools and their staff are also vulnerable, either because of lack of infrastructure or because of the lack of resources and poor conditions in which to operate effectively. Better understanding of these schools will have a positive effect on the promotion of timely support that allows the overcoming of the deficiencies that have traditionally been observed. Finally, we suggest that the definition for school leadership for social justice should be grounded in the daily realities facing the principals in high needs schools. Because of its importance, this concept demands deeper development of a better understanding to guide key educational actors in searching for more socially just schools. School leaders have a powerful role, capable of changing the social structure of the school through their practices and those of others (Méndez-Salcido & Torres-Arcadia 2013). Though specific training is needed, and learning about good practices is useful, it is equally important to develop a clear understanding about the high needs context and the practices needed to promote social justice.

Acknowledgement The authors thank Dr. Elsa Pech Ceballos for her collaboration.

References Angelle, P. S. (2017). Beliefs and behaviors of two high school principals in developing a sense of school community for students. NASSP Bulletin, 101(1), 5-22. doi:10.1177/0192636517694957 Antúnez, S. (2004). Organización escolar y acción directiva. México: SEP. Barnett, B., & Stevenson, H. (2015). International Perspectives in Urban Educational Leadership: Social justice leadership and high-need schools. In M. A. Khalifa, N. W. Arnold, A. F. Osanloo & C. M. Grant (Eds.), Handbook of Urban Educational Leadership (pp. 518-531). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.


│ 143

Bennett, J., & Murakami, E. (2016). Heroic leadership redefined in the United States border context: Case studies of successful principals in Arizona and Texas. International Studies in Educational Administration, 44(1), 5-23. Beyer, B. (2012). Blending constructs and concepts: Development of emerging theories of organizational leadership and their relationship to leadership practices for social justice. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 7(3), 1-12. Blanco, E. (2009). La desigualdad de resultados educativos: Aportes a la teoría desde la investigación sobre eficacia escolar [The inequality of educational results: Contributions to the theory from research on school effectiveness]. Revista Méxicana de Investigación Educativa, 14(43), 1019-1049. Bolívar, A. (2012). Justicia social y equidad escolar. Una revisión actual. Revista Internacional de Educación para la Justicia Social, 1(1), 9-45. Bolívar, A., López, J., & Murillo, F. J. (2013). Liderazgo en las instituciones educativas: Una revisión de líneas de investigación. Revista Fuentes, 14(2), 15-60. Bolívar, J. M., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2011). Enhancing parent leadership through building social and intellectual capital. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 4-38. doi:10.3102/0002831210366466 Calderón, D. (2017). Introducción. La triple exclusión en México. En P. González-Rubio y J. L O’Donoghue (Coords.). Tod@s: Estado de la Educación en México 2017 (pp. 14-23). México: Mexicanos Primero. CONEVAL. (2015). Inventario Federal de Programas y Acciones Federales de Desarrollo Social 2014: Presentación y análisis del inventario 2014-2105. Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social. Ciudad de México: CONEVAL. CONEVAL. (2017). Informe de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social 2016. Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social (CONEVAL). Ciudad de México: CONEVAL. Day, C. (2007). What being a successful principal really means: An international perspective. Educational Leadership and Administration, 19, 13-24. Day, C. (2014). Resilient principals in challenging schools: The courage and costs of conviction. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 20(5), 638-654. Day, C. (2016). Teachers and the Quality of Education: Why resileince counts most in testing times. In J. Chi-KinLee & C. Day (Eds.), Quality and Change in Teacher Education: Western and Chinese perspectives, (pp. 19-37). Switzerland: Springer. Day, C., & Leithwood, K. (2007). Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change: An international perspective. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media B.V. Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., Brown, E., Ahtaridou, E., & Kington, A. (2009). The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes. Final Report. Nottingham, UK: National College of School Leadership. DOF. (1993). Ley General de Educación [General Law of Education]. July 13, 1993. Last reform published in DOF April 9, 2012. México. Published in Diario Oficial de la Federación. DOF. (2013). Artículo Tercero Constitucional. SEGOB (retrieved from http://www.ordenjuridico.gob.mx/ Constitucion/articulos/3.pdf). Duke, D. L. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 729. Duke, D. L. (2012). Tinkering and turnarounds: Understanding the contemporary campaign to improve low-performing schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 17(1-2), 9-24. doi: 10.1080/10824669.2012.636696

144 |


ENADIS. (2011). Encuesta Nacional sobre Discrimación en México. México: Consejo Nacional para Prevenir la Discriminación (retrieved from http://www.conapred.org.mx/userfiles/files/Enadis-2010-RGAccss-002.pdf). European Commission. (2013). Reducing Early School Leaving: Key messages and policy support. Final Report of the Thematic Working Group on Early School Leaving (retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/ dgs/education_culture/repository/education/policy/strategic-framework/doc/esl-group-report_en.pdf). Fajardo, F. F., Campos, M. M., Castaño, E. F., & del Barco, B. L. (2017). Análisis del rendimiento académico de los alumnos de educación secundaria obligatoria según las variables familiares. Educación XX1, 20(1), 209-232. doi:http://0-dx.doi.org.millenium.itesm.mx/10.5944/educXX1.14475 Field, S., Kuczera, B., & Pont, B. (2007). No More Failures: Ten steps to equity in education. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Finnigan, K. S. (2012). Principal leadership in low-performing schools: A closer look through the eyes of teachers. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 183-202. doi:10.1177/0013124511431570 Formichella, M. M. (2017). Reconociendo el carácter multifacético de la educación: Los determinantes de los logros cognitivos y no cognitivos en la escuela media Argentina. El Trimestre Económico, 84(1), 165-191. Furman, G. (2004). The ethic of community. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(2), 215-235. Goldfarb, K. P., & Grinberg, J. (2002). Leadership for social justice: Authentic participation in the case of a community center in Caracas, Venezuela. Journal of School Leadership, 12(2), 157-173. González, M. T. (2014). El liderazgo para la justicia social en las organizaciones educativas. Revista Internacional de Educación para la Justicia Social, 3(2), 85-106. Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., Clarke, S., & Wildy, H. (2014). High-need schools in Australia. Management in Education, 28(3), 86-90. Handford, V., & Leithwood, K. (2013). Why teachers trust school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 194-212. doi:10.1108/09578231311304706 Hernández-Castilla, R., Ramírez, R. E., & Farran, N. H. (2013). Prácticas del liderazgo escolar implicado en la promoción de la justicia social: Estudio de un caso en educación secundaria. Profesorado, 17(2), 263280. INEE. (2007). La Educación para Poblaciones en Contextos Vulnerables: Informe 2007. México: Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación (retrieved from http://www.inee.edu.mx/index.php/ publicaciones/informes-institucionales/informes-anuales/68-publicaciones/informes-anuales-capitulos/4 09-la-educacion-para-poblaciones-en-contextos-vulnerables-informe-2007). INEE. (2015). Plan Nacional para la Evaluación de los Aprendizajes (PLANEA). México: Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación (retrieved from http://www.inee.edu.mx/images/stories/ 2015/planea/Planea_documento212.pdf). INEE. (2016). La Educación Obligatoria en México: Informe 2016. México: Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación (retrieved from http://publicaciones.inee.edu.mx/buscadorPub/P1/I/241/ P1I241.pdf). INEE. (2017). Acuerdo Interinstitucional Para Mejorar la Atención Educativa de la Niñez Jornalera Agrícola Migrante. México: Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación (retrieved from http://www.snte.org.mx/pdfindigena/acuerdopaz.pdf). Kemp-Graham, K. Y. (2015). Missed opportunities: Preparing aspiring school leaders for bold social justice school leadership needed for 21st century schools. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 10(21), 99-129. Khalil, D., & Brown, E. (2015). Enacting a social justice leadership framework: The 3 c’s of urban teacher quality. Journal of Urban Learning Teaching and Research, 11, 77-90.


│ 145

Klar, H., & Brewer, C. (2013). Successful leadership in high-needs schools: An examination of core leadership practices enacted in challenging contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(5), 768-808. Ladd, H. F. (2012). Education and poverty: Confronting the evidence. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(2), 203-227. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129. Leithwood, K., & Jingping, S. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423. Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., & Wahtstrom, K. (2004). How Leadership Influences Student Learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671-706. Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2002). Hope: A new positive strength for human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 1(3), 304-322. doi:10.1177/1534484302013003 Martínez, F. (2012). Contextos vulnerables: Las aportaciones de la evaluación. Bordón, 64(2), 41-50. Méndez-Salcido, E., & Torres-Arcadia, C. (2013). The Practice of a Successful Secondary School Principal from an Agency Perspective. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, AERA San Francisco, California. Moral, C., García-Garníca, M., & Martínez-Valdivia, E. (2017). Leading for social justice in challenging school contexts. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1-20. 10.1080/13603124.2016.1274784 Morvaridi, B. (2008). Social Justice and Development. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Murillo J., Krichesky G., Castro A., & Hernández R. (2010). Liderazgo para la inclusión escolar y la justicia social. Aportaciones de la investigación. Revista Latinoamericana de Inclusión Educativa, 4(1), 169-186. Murillo, F. J., & Román, M. (2014). Consecuencias del trabajo infantil en el desempeño escolar: Estudiantes latinoamericanos de educación primaria. Latin American Research Review, 49(2), 84-109. Notman, R. (2015). Leadership in New Zealand high-needs schools: An exploratory study from the International School Leadership Development Network Project. Scottish Educational Review, 47(1), 28-48. OECD. (2010). Mejorar las Escuelas: Estrategias para la acción en México. Resumen Ejecutivo. México: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (retrieved from http://www.oecd. org/edu/school/46216786.pdf). OECD. (2012). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting disadvantaged students and schools. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1787/9789264130852-en). OECD. (2015). Nota País. Resultados de Pisa 2015. México: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2015-Mexico-ESP.pdf). Okilwa, N., & Barnett, B. (2017). Sustaining school improvement in a high-need school: Longitudinal analysis of Robbins Elementary School (USA) from 1993 to 2015. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(3), 297-315. doi:10.1108/JEA-03-2016-0034 Raczynski, D., & Muñoz, G. (2007). Reforma educacional chilena: El difícil equilibrio entre la macro y la micro-política. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 5(3), 40-83. Rivera-McCutchen, R. (2014). The moral imperative of social justice leadership: A critical component of effective practice. The Urban Review, 46(4), 747-763. doi:10.1007/s11256-014-0297-2 SEB. (2014). Revisión Nacional 2015 de la Educación para Todos: México. Secretaría de Educación Básica [Secretariat of Basic Education] (retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002300/ 230024S.pdf).

146 |


Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. London, UK: Allen Lane. Silva, P., Slater, C., Lopez Gorosave, G., Cerdas, V., Torres, N., Antunez, S., & Briceno, F. (2017). Educational leadership for social justice in Costa Rica, Mexico, and Spain. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(3), 316-333. Stake, R. T. (2006). Multiple Case Study Analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2012). Transformational school leadership effects on student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(4), 418-451. Tapia-Gutiérrez, C. P., Becerra-Peña, S., Mansilla-Sepúlveda, J., & Saavedra-Muñoz, J. (2011). Liderazgo de los directivos docentes en contextos vulnerables. Educación y Educadores, 14(2), 389-409. Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221-258. Theoharis, G. (2008). Identity and leadership of urban social justice principals. Educational and Urban Society, 41(1), 3-25. Torres-Arcadia, C., Temblador-Pérez, M., Ruíz-Cantisani, M. I., & Flores-Fahara, M. (2013). The Successful Mexican School Principal: A professional and personal profile. Paper presented at the 2013 annual meeting of the World Education Research Association, WERA, Guanajuato, Mexico. UNESCO. (2009). Directrices Sobre Políticas de Inclusión en la Educación. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0017/001778/ 177849s.pdf). Wang, F. (2015). Conceptualizing social justice: Interviews with principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(5), 667-681. Weldon, F. D. (2012). Evaluating leadership styles of high-performing versus low-performing atriskschools. Unpublished DEd thesis, University of Phoenix. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research, Design and Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Ylimaki, R. M., Fetman, L. J., Matyjasik, E., Brunderman, L., & Uljens, M. (2017). Beyond normativity in sociocultural reproduction and sociocultural transformation: Curriculum work–leadership within an evolving context. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(1), 70-106. doi:10.1177/0013161X16669200 Ylimaki, R. M., Jacobson, S. L., & Drysdale, L. (2007). Making a difference in challenging, high-poverty schools: Successful principals in the USA, England, and Australia. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(4), 361-381. doi: 10.1080/09243450701712486

Author Details Celina Torres-Arcadia Institution: Tecnologico de Monterrey Email: [email protected] César Rodríguez-Uribe Institution: Instituto Marista de Investigación y Desarrollo Email: [email protected] Gabriela Mora Institution: Unidad Pedagógica Nacional, Unidad 26 A. Email: [email protected]


│ 147

Leading High Needs Schools: Findings from the International School Leadership Development Network David Gurr and Lawrie Drysdale

Abstract: This paper provides a synthesis of the six papers contained in this special issue of International Studies in Educational Administration (ISEA) focused on cases from the high needs school group of the International School Leadership Development Network (ISLDN). The paper provides background information about the ISLDN and summaries of the papers. Comparing the papers, there was evidence that principals adapted their interventions or practices to suit their school’s context, that despite different contexts there were educational leadership commonalities that described much of the work of the principals, the principals were best described as entrepreneurs and leaders rather than managers, and that leadership and context have a reciprocal influence. Keywords: high needs schools, school improvement, learning, leadership, context

Project Introduction This issue of International Studies in Educational Administration brought together six papers that represented school leadership research from five countries – Australia, Belize, Mexico, New Zealand, and the United States of America – with the intent of exploring how leaders in high needs, low-performing schools deal with the internal and external contextual factors influencing student and teacher performance. The International School Leadership Development Network (ISLDN – isldn.weebly.com) has a special place in the international leadership research community as it is a genuinely collaborative community of scholars from over 20 countries coming together to consider the leadership of schools from social justice and high needs perspectives. The special issue, and the companion book (Murakami, Gurr & Notman 2018) provide the first reports of the detailed case studies from the high needs strand of the ISLDN. The ISLDN has developed research protocols that centre on multipleperspective case studies (https://isldn.weebly.com/project-design.html) which build on those of the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP – www.uv.uio.no/ils/ english/research/projects/isspp).

148 |


In the ISLDN, school selection was focused on schools showing high needs serving lower socio-economic communities. The actual criteria for selection were left to each country, with the proviso that the selection was robust and that transparent methods were used. Amongst the criteria were: • • • • • • • • •

High percentage of individuals from families with incomes below the poverty line; High percentage of school teachers not teaching in the content area in which they were trained to teach; High teacher/leader turnover rate; High percentage of non-native language speakers; High percentage of historically/socially excluded groups; High percentage of indigenous groups; High percentage of students with learning differences; Lack of access to basic physical infrastructure; and/or Situational needs based on unforeseen events (e.g., natural or manmade disasters).

Countries were allowed to focus on: 1. 2.

A new principal, or A principal greater than two years in post with the school showing signs of improvement, or an expectation that there will be improvement.

Overall, the ISLDN protocols described the main data collection methods as: • • • • • • •

Individual interviews with the school leader (two interviews); Individual interviews with two senior staff members (assistant principal and curriculum coordinator where available); Individual interviews with six other teachers, and, where available, the school council president, and school council parent member; Group interviews with parents (possibly 2 groups of 3-8); Interviews with groups of students were appropriate (possibly 2 groups of 3-8); Observation of the work of the school principal and aspects of the life of the school; Collection of documents to confirm the success of the school and to inform the interview data including a quantitative instrument designed to measure the level of student academic motivation and attitudes toward learning.

The interview questions focused on three areas: • • •

Focus on learning: What fosters student learning in high needs schools? Focus on leadership: How do principals and other school leaders enhance individual and organisational performance in high needs schools? Focus on context: How do internal and external school contexts impact individual and organisational performance in high needs schools?


│ 149

Literature Review This special issue focuses on the interrelationship between leadership and context. This is an important area of research since the interplay can determine success and failure. Successful leaders understand the context in which they work and can navigate the various levels of context to forge a successful outcome. Other leaders can be constrained or derailed by the context. While there is no shortage of literature on leaders and leadership, the research on leadership in context has been more limited (Bush 2018). While there is reference to the importance of context (Johnston 1996; Sergiovanni 2000), overall in leadership research there is insufficient attention to the situational context and more focus given to the individual characteristics of leaders. We know that context matters but the question remains: how much does it matter? (Belchetz & Leithwood 2007). The relationship between the leader and context is complex, and there is a range of perspectives. One perspective is that you can’t remove a leader from their context and expect to measure their effectiveness. Another perspective suggests that context fashions leaders as the context evolves. Again, an alternative perspective is that context defines the leader’s approach and required style to match the situation. To complicate it more an effective leader in one context may not be effective in another context (Mayo 2007). The interplay between leadership and context to some extent remains a ‘black box’: a process whose inputs and outputs (and the relationships between them) are known, but whose internal structure or working is not known or well understood. Some writers have attempted to unravel the process. Bennis and Thomas (2002) introduced the notion of adaptive capacity – the ability to succeed in multiple contexts by changing one’s leadership style and approach to fit the culture, context, or condition of an organisation. In this scenario leaders respond to the evolving context. The assumption is that context shapes business leadership. To support this view, Bazigo, Gagnon and Schaninger (2016) noted that in the corporate context, effectiveness depends less on the traits of executives and more on a company’s competitive challenges, legacies and shifting forces. Nohria and Mayo (2005) described how opportunity emerges when environmental factors and individual factors come together to create a positive outcome. They argued that it is more important to explore how leaders think. For example, they described how effective leaders can use two opposing ideas to arrive at a new idea that contains elements of each, but is superior to both. One of the challenges is to define what we mean by context. Context can be an element or layer, or conceived as several layers (Hallinger 2018). Examples of exploring only one or two contextual factors can be found in the research of Southworth (2003) who explored leadership within the context of different sized schools, and Walker and Dimmock (2002) who explored the relationship between leadership and societal and organisational culture. As guest editors of a special edition centred on leadership in context, Hargrove and Owens (2008) focused on political leadership and highlighted the problematic nature of success of leaders in these

150 |


situations. They provided a continuum where political leaders’ actions at one end were determined by the context and situation, and at the other end by leaders who overcame the context. They highlighted how areas between the two ends of the continuum are where political leaders have an opportunity to exercise freedom to lead, by seeking out and exploiting opportunities which allow them to influence the political context. There are examples where research has attempted to explore school leadership across country contexts, and then, within the countries, several more layers of context. In the International Successful School Principalship Study that compared leadership in different countries (e.g., Drysdale 2011, Gurr 2014; Gurr & Day 2014; Gurr et al. 2006; Leithwood 2005; Leithwood & Day 2007a, 2007b; Moos, Johansson & Day 2011; Ylimaki & Jacobson 2011), successful principals seemed to be less contextually dependent, and were able to work with and influence context to help school success. In exploring nine case studies of successful leadership from Victoria, Australia, Gurr et al. (2006) described a range of multiple contexts that consisted of different types of schools (primary, secondary, special school, rural and city, small and large, demographic and geographical, low and high socio-economic status); education systems and structures (centralised and decentralised, various degrees of autonomy, government and non-government); and, education policies (divergence of initiatives). While there were many differences in context, the successful principals demonstrated personal qualities and characteristics, and strategic interventions that were critical to success within the contexts. Some of the behaviours were consistent across contexts (e.g., building the capacity of staff), and others context sensitive (e.g., instructional leadership in a small school setting). Within this project, we have cases of principals who have changed school contexts, not altered their leadership substantially, and still been successful leaders (e.g., Gurr 2007). Within the one system, we have successful principals who have operated in the same policy environment, yet, for example, their change interventions/practices are very different with some embracing continuous and often rapid change, and others more circumspect (Drysdale, Goode & Gurr 2009, 2011; Goode 2017; Gurr, Drysdale, Longmuir & McCrohan 2018; Longmuir 2017). Some, who have been successful principals in the past, have found themselves struggling to make the impact they would like when they have taken on the challenge of improving a struggling school in challenging circumstances (Gurr, Drysdale, Clarke & Wildy 2014; Gurr et al. 2018); sometimes the context means that leadership for success is a long and difficult path. Whilst these examples show that context can influence leadership, we have shown here and elsewhere (Gurr & Day 2014) that across the extensive research of the ISSPP there are core characteristics and practices that successful school leaders seem to have, and which transcend context and culture; these centre on the well-known areas of setting direction, developing staff, leading organisational change and improving teaching and learning. We surmise that successful school leaders are culturally sensitive, but not constrained by context. Day (2005: 581) noted successful school principals demonstrated the ability to:


│ 151

… not be confined by the contexts in which they work. They do not comply, subvert, or overtly oppose. Rather they actively mediate and moderate within a set of core values and practices which transcend narrowly conceived improvement agendas.

Special Issue Papers The papers in this special issue attempt to describe how leaders work with contexts. The common aspect of context in all the papers is related to leadership in schools with high needs. In addition, they represent examples across several country contexts. The six papers are from Australia, Belize (Central America), Mexico, New Zealand, and the United States of America (2). In keeping with the collaborative and evolving nature of the project, not all research groups followed the ISLDN protocols exactly, but in each case sufficient description of methodology is provided to allow reader judgement of integrity and trustworthiness. The three cases contained in the Mexican paper are the only cases that strictly adhere to the ISLDN protocols. The paper from Australia used the ISSPP protocols, and the New Zealand paper also used ISSPP protocols but was focused on an early childhood setting, and then only reported on the parental involvement aspect of a larger study. The Belize paper and the two papers concerned with Texas elementary schools used modifications of the ISLDN protocol, and, in the case of the Okilwa and Barnett paper, reported on one aspect, leadership succession, of a larger study. So, in keeping with the broad and inviting nature of the ISLDN, this issue of ISEA reports on a diverse range of studies. The common elements are that the research was driven by a concern to explore leadership of high needs education settings, and that the multiple perspective case study methodology was used. Three papers explored the notion of levels of context. Murakami, Kearney and Scott outline various levels of context when they explore the leadership within one high poverty/high minority school in Texas, USA. The methodology is a qualitative case study with interviews with staff, parents and teachers. The case study examines the sustainability of successful leadership practices that attempt to develop a positive learning culture in challenging circumstances. The contextual challenges include national policy changes towards privatisation and reduced resources for public schools, unequitable allocation of support in high poverty areas, high principal turnover, and inadequate leadership preparation. Within this overall context, schools also operate within a challenging environment characterised by high poverty, poor teacher retention, poor curriculum alignment with teachers, student behavioural management and discipline issues, low student attendance, and lack of parent involvement. The paper outlines the interventions adopted by the school leader to address these challenges, supported by special grant money from the state. The interventions focused on developing a positive culture of learning through use of quality data, increased community engagement, improved climate and higher teacher quality. The improvement and sustainability were described as a work in progress.

152 |


Gurr, Drysdale, Longmuir and McCrohan explore a layered perspective of context when they examine the leadership of three underperforming schools in Melbourne, Australia. They identify six layers of context: institutional, community, socio-cultural, economic, political, and school improvement. The paper shows how each of the school leaders worked within six contextual dimensions to improve school performance. The interesting aspect of this paper compared with the other papers was that two schools were in educationally high advantaged contexts but were defined as high needs. The paper shows how the principals worked within the various contextual levels to provide appropriate interventions that impacted positively on the school’s performance. Okilwa and Barnett offer a unique perspective that reflects long-term success and sustainability. The paper explored how four leaders in an urban elementary school in a high needs context in urban South Texas successfully improved and sustained performance over 25 years. The authors acknowledge that there are levels of context, but focus on the societal and school level context. The school level context included community and school demographics, resources, leadership and teachers, within a high needs urban environment. In the study the four successive principals were interviewed along with three veteran teachers and two parent leaders. The findings show how each principal could understand and work within the community, school and district context to develop interventions that improved and sustained success. Collectively the strategies adopted by each principal were shown to build on previous success. The paper by Jacobson and Notman explores leadership within an early childhood setting in a challenging social economic context in New Zealand. The paper uses a multiple perspective case study approach with three cases using semi-structured interviews with principals, teachers and parents. The paper outlines the key leadership practices used by the principals, but more importantly highlights how these principals developed and partnered with parents and the community. Strong, nurturing relationships were important in fostering a positive environment that enhanced student life chances. Waight, Chisolm and Jacobson provide a very different context by exploring school leadership in developing a STEM curriculum for students in a secondary school in Belize (Central America). Belize is a country whose economy is based mainly on tourism, educational resources are limited and the prospect for employment for students was restricted to only a few industries. In this case, the school leadership worked within the limitation of scarce resources, but maximised the opportunities the context offered through focusing on STEM areas which impact on the tourism industry. Again, the strategy of working with the community was important as the STEM programme provided opportunities for students to work practically within the industry to develop career options in tourism. The final paper by Torres-Arcadia, Rodríguez-Uribe and Mora explores principal leadership practices within three Mexican elementary schools in high needs environments. Using a


│ 153

multi-perspective case study approach the authors outline the external and internal contextual challenges. The paper adopts a leadership for social justice perspective. Within a high needs context, the principals get back to basics: strategies for promoting order and discipline, clarifying roles and rules, adapting to the context, managing external support, developing self-esteem, and a sense of belonging. While there is evidence of improvement there was a consensus that there was little they could do to address inequity. An important aspect that appeared to be missing was the lack of recognition and support for principals.

Conclusion One of the most striking aspects across the cases is how the school leaders adapted their interventions or practices to suit the context; Okilwa and Barnett described this as contextual acuity. Similarly, Mayo (2006) describes this as contextual intelligence. In Belize, the two principals at the school connected the curriculum closely with current interest in STEM education and the local industries that were likely to be sources of employment for students. In New Zealand, the three early childhood leaders of course focused on developing teachers, but, more importantly for their context, they focused on developing parents, helping their young parents to become better parents. In Australia, the principals had different approaches to change. One principal, in a school that was close to being closed, tried anything that would work to get a more student focused learning environment; the principal was searching for ‘next practice’ ideas, and assembling these into a coherent programme. The other principals led ‘best practice’ environments where the schools operated using ideas that were known to be good approaches to learning; one of these principals also searched for ‘next practice’ ideas but did so in a carefully considered way so that these were a good fit with the already established school direction. Across the three schools, change was driven quickly by the principals in the two schools that had more dire contexts, whilst in the more established school change was slower. Moving to the history of four principals at the one school, it was shown how each principal was able to adapt to their context and build on the foundations laid by previous principals. This is a wonderful story of how thoughtful leaders were able to read their immediate and past school contexts and continue to nurture school success. What is also striking is how common views of leadership work well to describe the work of these principals. For example, the core practices of setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organisation and improving teaching and learning, found in the literature on successful school leadership, were also evident in the cases. ECE leaders were shown to exhibit the first three characteristics and to also emphasise the creation of positive school/family relationships. At Robbins Elementary there was a four-principal history of setting a clear improvement direction, supporting teachers to improve, altering school conditions, a relentless yet supportive focus on improving teaching and learning, and, fostering significant parent and community engagement. At PFS Elementary the results showed significant developments in staff retention, curriculum, student behaviour and attendance, parent involvement, and student learning outcomes, and the authors noted that

154 |


this was dependent on the principal establishing a collaborative school vision, creating a culture of learning, and implementing incremental change across the areas of discipline, attendance, training and curriculum implementation. In exploring the leadership of business executives over time in a range of contexts, Mayo and Nohria (2005) found that the best leaders were highly sensitive to their context and grasped opportunities from their environment to develop their business. They identified three archetypes of leadership. Firstly, they identified the entrepreneurs who were ahead of their time and were not constrained by their environment. They were often able to overcome almost impossible barriers and challenges to find or do something new. Secondly, were the managers who were skilled at understanding and exploiting their context. They demonstrated a deep understanding of the context and shaped and grew their business accordingly. Finally, they described the leaders – people who confronted change and saw potential in their business that others failed to see. ‘Entrepreneurs create new businesses, managers grow and optimize them, and leaders transform them at critical inflection points’ (Mayo & Nohria 2005: 48). We see evidence of patterns and behaviours that straddled all three leadership archetypes. For example, the case studies from Australia show that one of the principals clearly matched the characteristics of entrepreneurial leadership by being highly innovative by creating new processes, structures and practices, whilst the other two principals had elements of the three archetypical leaders but could not be classified easily into one type. The two leaders from Belize showed both leadership and entrepreneurship in introducing an innovative STEM programme for students in response to the challenges of a high needs environment. It was shown how the four principals who successively led the one school over a 25-year period were each able to take a leadership role in growing the school. The early childhood principals in New Zealand showed leadership by building social capital by partnering with parents in the community. Despite the changing context at different levels at the national, state, district and community levels, the principal in the Texas case study took advantage of the educational initiatives offered at the state level to introduce a series of strategies to build a learning culture and improve teacher quality. Finally, in getting back to the basics, the principals in the Mexican case study demonstrated sound understanding of the context to shape and refocus the school. The case studies help us to better understand leadership in context. They confirm that leadership and context have a reciprocal influence process. As Doherty (2008) observed, principal leadership can influence a school, but equally the school can influence the leadership of a principal. So, what are the lessons we can learn about leadership in high needs contexts? Firstly, while leaders in high needs situations faced what seemed to be insurmountable obstacles, they were not captured or made inert by context, and instead were optimistic about a better future. Secondly, they were contextually sensitive and responded positively with strategic interventions that forged a path to a better future. They showed a level of competence and skills that helped them to manage the situation and make good decisions. Thirdly, they appeared to be adaptable to changing circumstances. Whilst systemic,


│ 155

school and community contexts may change, the school leaders were adept at putting appropriate pieces on the moving mosaics of their schools. Finally, they showed personal leadership that helped bring people together in a common purpose of providing quality education.

References Bazigo, M., Gagnon, C., & Schaninger, B. (2016). Leadership in context. McKinsey Quarterly, 1st Quarter, 2016(1), 72-79. Belchetz, D., & Leithwood, K. (2007). Successful Leadership: Does context matter and if so, how? In: C. Day & K. Leithwood (Eds.), Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change (pp. 117-138). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Bennis, W., & Thomas, R. (2002). Geeks and Geezers: How era, values and defining moments shape leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Bush, T. (2018). Leadership and context: Why one-size does not fit all. Educational Management Administrational and Leadership, 47(1), 3-4. Day, C. (2005). Sustaining success in challenging contexts: Leadership in English schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 573-583. Doherty, J. (2008). Successful leadership in an independent school in Victoria, Australia. Doctor of Education thesis, The University of Melbourne. Drysdale, L. (2011). Evidence from new cases in the International Successful School Principalship Project. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(4), 444-455. Drysdale, L., Goode, H., & Gurr, D. (2009). An Australian model of successful school leadership: Moving from success to sustainability. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(6), 697-708. Drysdale, L., Goode, H., & Gurr, D. (2011). Sustaining School and Leadership Success in Two Australian Schools. In L. Moos, O. Johansson & C. Day (Eds.), How School Principals Sustain Success Over Time: International perspectives (pp. 25-38). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer-Kluwer. Goode, H. (2017). A study of successful principal leadership: Moving from success to sustainability. Doctor of Philosophy thesis, The University of Melbourne. Gurr, D. (2007). We Can be the Best. In P. Duignan & D. Gurr (Eds.), Leading Australia’s Schools (pp. 124131). Sydney, Australia: ACEL and DEST. Gurr, D. (2014). Successful school leadership across contexts and cultures. Leading and Managing, 20(2), 75-88. Gurr, D., & Day, C. (2014). Thinking about Leading Schools. In C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds.), Leading Schools Successfully: Stories from the field (pp. 194-208). London, UK: Routledge. Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., Clarke, S., & Wildy, H. (2014). High needs schools in Australia. Management in Education, 28(3), 86-90. Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., Longmuir, F., & McCrohan, K. (2018 – in press). Successful School Leadership that is Culturally Sensitive but Not Context Constrained. In E. Murakami, D. Gurr & R. Notman (Eds.), Leadership, Culture and School Success in High-Need Schools (pages to be confirmed). Washington, DC: Information Age Publishing. Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., Swann, R., Doherty, J., Ford, P., & Goode, H. (2006). The International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP): Comparison across country case studies. In L. Smith & D. Riley (Eds.), New Waves of Leadership (pp. 36-50). Sydney, Australia: ACEL.

156 |


Hallinger, P. (2018). Bringing context out of the shadow. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 5-24 Hargrove, E. C., & Owens, J. E. (2002). Leadership in context. Politics and Policy, 30(2), 199-207. Johnston, S. (1996). Leading to Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Leithwood, K. (2005). Understanding successful principal leadership: Progress on a broken front. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 619-629. Leithwood, K., & Day, C. (2007a). Starting with What We Know. In C. Day & K. Leithwood (Eds.), Successful School Leadership in Times of Change (pp. 1-16). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer-Kluwer. Leithwood, K., & Day, C. (2007b). What We Learned: A broad view. In C. Day & K. Leithwood (Eds.), Successful School Leadership in Times of Change (pp. 189-203). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer-Kluwer. Longmuir, F. (2017). Principal leadership in high-advantage, improving Victorian secondary schools. Doctor of Philosophy thesis, The University of Melbourne. Mayo, T. (2006). Contextual intelligence in leadership. Business World, 26(3), np. Mayo, T. (2007). Context-based leadership. Management Digital Article. Harvard Business Review, 24 July, np. Mayo. T., & Nohria, N. (2005). Zeitgeist leadership. Harvard Business Review, October, 45-60. Moos, L., Johansson, O., & Day, C. (2011). New Insights: How successful school leadership is sustained. In L. Moos, O. Johansson & C. Day (Eds.), How School Principals Sustain Success Over Time. International perspectives (pp. 223-230). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Murakami, E., Gurr, D., & Notman, R. (Eds.) (2018 – in press). Leadership, Culture and School Success in High-Need Schools. Washington, DC: Information Age Publishing. Nohria, N., & Mayo, T. (2005). In Their Time: The greatest business leaders of the 20th century. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Sergiovanni, T. (2000). The Lifeworld of Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Southworth, G. (2003). Primary School Leadership in Context. London, UK: Routledge. Walker, A., & Dimmock, C. (2002). The Societal Cultural Context of Educational Administration and Leadership: Introduction. In A. Walker & C. Dimmock (Eds.), School Leadership and Administration: Adopting a cultural perspective (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Ylimaki, R. M., & Jacobson, S. L. (2011). Comparative Perspective on Organisational Learning, Instructional Leadership, and Culturally Responsive Practices: Conclusions and future directions. In R. M. Ylimaki & S. L. Jacobson (Eds.), US and Cross-National Policies, Practices, and Preparation: Implications for successful instructional leadership, organizational learning, and culturally responsive practices (pp. 179-190). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer-Kluwer.

Author Details David Gurr The University of Melbourne Email: [email protected] Lawrie Drysdale The University of Melbourne Email: [email protected]


Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management (CCEAM) BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2018 EXECUTIVE Executive President

Vice President

Past President

Member

Member

Ken Brien, EdD Associate Professor Executive Representative for the Americas Faculty of Education University of New Brunswick PO Box 4400 Fredericton, NB CANADA E3B 5A3 Phone: (506) 452 6213a Fax: (506) 453 3569 Email: [email protected] Professor Christopher Bezzina, FCCEAM Executive Representative for Europe Head of Department Department of Leadership for Learning & Innovation Faculty of Education, University of Malta Msida MSD 2080 MALTA Phone: +356 2340 2039 Email: [email protected] Dr Anusha Naidu Executive Representative for Southern Africa CEO, E2E People Growth REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Phone: +27 11 680 8332 Fax: +27 86 509 5231 Email: [email protected] Dato Professor Ibrahim Bajunid Executive Representative for Asia INTI-Laureate International Universities, Malaysia INTI International University Persiaran Perdana BBN Putra Nilai 71800 Nilai N. Sembilan MALAYSIA Phone: +606 798 2000 Fax: +606 799 7536 Email: [email protected] Peter Kants Assistant Secretary Corporate Services Wing, Policy & Corporate Services Directorate Department of Education Fincorp Haus, P. O. Box 446 Waigani NCD PAPUA NEW GUINEA Phone: +675 301 3582 or +675 325 3582 Email: [email protected]

157

158


NATIONAL AFFILIATES’ REPRESENTATIVES

MEMBERSHIP SECRETARIES

Africa Cameroon – CACEM

Mandi Manga Obase PO Box 189 DIDI Cyber Menoua Division WP CAMEROON Phone: +237 7639090 Fax: +237 3354454 Email: [email protected]

Dickong Dickson M Secretary CACEM PO Box 470, Meme Division Kumba, South West Region CAMEROON Phone: +237 7361781 Fax: +237 3354454 Email: [email protected]

Kenya

Professor Wanjiku Khamasi PO Box 5706, Eldoret 30100 KENYA Phone: +254 722 454679 Fax: +254 53 2063257 Email: [email protected]

Mr. Hosea Kiplagat Secretary KAEAM Department of Technology Education P.O.Box 1125, Eldoret, 30100 KENYA Email: [email protected]

Namibia – NEMAS

Dennis D.J. Fredericks Faculty of Management Sciences Namibia University of Science and Technology Private Bag 13388 Storch Street Windhoek NAMIBIA Phone: +264 61 207 2857 or +264 81 261 5112 Fax: +264 61 207 2946 Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Aletta A Eises Deputy Director Lifelong Learning Ministry of Education Arts and Culture Hardap Regional Council P0 Box 2122 Mariental NAMIBIA 00 264 63 245702 +264-812512451

Nigeria – NAEAP

Professor David Durosaro Department of Educational Management, University of Ilorin Kwara State NIGERIA Email: [email protected]

Dr Gospel G. Kpee Department of Educational Administration and Planning Faculty of Education, University of Harcourt Rivers State NIGERIA Phone: 08032700454 Email: [email protected]

South Africa

Anusha Naidu Chief Operations Officer Matthew Goniwe School of Leadership and Governance Corner Eighth and Hull Street Vrededorp, 2091 SOUTH AFRICA Phone: +27 11 830 2200

Anusha Naidu Chief Operations Officer Matthew Goniwe School of Leadership and Governance Corner Eighth and Hull Street Vrededorp, 2091 SOUTH AFRICA Phone: +27 11 830 2200


159

Mobile: +27 83 611 7147 Fax: +27 86 637 4853 Web: http://www.mgslg.co.za

Mobile: +27 83 611 7147 Fax: +27 86 637 4853 Web: http://www.mgslg.co.za

Tanzania

Chelestino S Mofuga Chairman, TACELAM PO Box 19 Iringa TANZANIA Phone: +255 767 580 448 Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Chelestino S Mofuga Chairman, TACELAM PO Box 19 Iringa TANZANIA Phone: +255 767 580 448 Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Uganda – UCEA

Sam K. Busulwa Academic Registrar Nkumba University PO Box 237, Entebbe UGANDA Phone: +041 320283 or +041 200557 or +075 2692118 Email: [email protected]

Sam Busulwa M Secretary UCEA UGANDA Phone: +2575 269 2118 Email: [email protected]

Barbados – CARSEA

Maureen Yard Bert Ville, 1st Avenue Rockley, Christ Church BARBADOS Phone: +246 427 0885 Fax: +246 427 0885 Email: [email protected]

Maureen Yard President CARSEA Bert Ville 1st Avenue Rockley, Christ Church BARBADOS Phone: +246 427 0885 Fax: +246 427 0885 Email: [email protected]

Canada – CASEA/CSSE

Carolyn Shields College of Education Wayne State University 5425 Gullen Mall, Room 397 Detroit, MI, 48202, USA Phone: +1 (313) 577-1692 Email: [email protected]

Tim Howard Membership Secretary CSSE Office 260 Dalhousie Street, Suite 204 Ottawa, ON CANADA, K1N 7E4 Phone: +613 241 0018 Fax: +613 241 0019 Email: [email protected]

Jamaica

Paul Miller, PhD University of Huddersfield Email: [email protected]

Mrs Kadia Hylton-Fraser St Jago High School Spanish Town St Catherine Jamaica WEST INDIES

Seychelles – SELMA

Jean Alcindor Director General Education Support Services Ministry of Education Mont Fleuri SEYCHELLES Phone: +248 4283034 or +248 2722963 Email: [email protected]

Ralph Jean-Louis Secretary SELMA Ma Josephine, Mahe SEYCHELLES Phone: +248 283162 or +248 324958 or +248 521517

Americas

160


St Vincents and Grenadines CARSEA-SVG

Dr Veronica Marks CARSEA-SVG PO Box 2246 Kingstown ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES Phone: 784 454 4709 Email: [email protected]

Dr Veronica Marks PO Box 2246 Kingstown St Vincent and the Grenadines WEST INDIES Phone: +784 454 4709 Email: [email protected]

Trinidad and Tobago TELMAS

Dr Freddy James, 12 Ormidale Avenue Cocoyea Village San Fernando Trinidad WEST INDIES Email: [email protected]

Sharon Phillip Membership Secretary 6 Ibis Drive, Pleasantville San Fernando Trinidad WEST INDIES Phone: 18683297577 Email: [email protected]

Dr Hemlata Talesra FCCEAM 12-A Panchwati Udaipur-313001 Rajasthan INDIA Phone: +91 9414 157857 or +91 9428 461631 Fax: +294 2427071 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Dr D.P. Sreekanatan Nair Farook Training College Kozhikkode Kerala INDIA Mobile: +919446171079

Professor Nilima Bhagabati Department of Education Gauhati University Guwahati

Assam - ACEAM Professor Nilima Bhagabati Secretary ACEAM Department of Education, Gauhati University, Guwahati Assam 781014 INDIA Phone: +94 35195542 or +98 64066459 Fax: +94 03612570275 Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Asia India

Gujarat – GCEAM Yogita Deshmukh Secretary GCEAM c/o Jaimin Purohit, B/h Nagarik Bank, Gaurav Path Tower Road, Himatnagar, Pin- 383 001, Dist. Sabarkantha, Gujarat INDIA Phone: +91 02772244816 or +91 09426025391 Email: [email protected]


161

Maharashtra –MCEAM Ms Sudha Sathaye President MCEAM c/o Ultimate Kitchen and Furniture Ground Floor, Hema-Prabha Society Chittaranjan Road Vile-Parle, East Mumbai 40057 INDIA Email: [email protected] Rajasthan – RCEAM Dr Indu Kothari Secretary General, RCEAM 12- A panchwati Udiapur (Rajasthan) INDIA Phone: +91 9414 164761 or +91 9414 157857 Uttar Pradesh – UCEAM Dr Nasrin Secretary UCEAM Reader, Department of Education Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh – 20002 INDIA Phone: +571 9297451671 Email: [email protected] Nagpur – NCEAM Dr Ushoshi Guha President, NCEAM 246 Gandhinagar Nagpur - 440010 INDIA Phone: +91 9373 118208 Email: [email protected] India – Kerala – KCEAM Kerala – KCEAM Dr V.M. Sasikumar Secretary General, KCEAM Former Principal College of Teacher Education Muthukulam Kerala INDIA Mobile: +91 9447 246190 or +91 9444 00701256 Dr D.P. Sreekanatan Nair Chairman, KCEAM Farook Training College Kozhikkode Kerala INDIA Mobile: +91 9446 171079

162


Malaysia

Dato Professor Ibrahim Bajunid INTI_Laureate International Universities, Malaysia INTI International University Persiaran Perdana BBN Putra Nilai 71800 Nilai, N. Sembilan MALAYSIA Phone: +606 798 2000 Fax: +606 799 7536 Email: [email protected]

Dato Professor Ibrahim Bajunid INTI Laureate International Universities, Malaysia INTI International University Persiaran Perdana BBN Putra Nilai 71800 Nilai N. Sembilan MALAYSIA Phone: +606 798 2000 Fax: +606 799 7536 Email: [email protected]

Australia

Please contact: Jenny Lewis CEO CCEAM Phone: +61 247 517974 Email: [email protected]


Fiji – FPA

Vinod Naicker Email: [email protected]

c/o Brij Deo Principal – Tavua College PO Box 85 Tavua FIJI ISLANDS Email: [email protected]

New Zealand – NZEALS

Jeremy Kedian 147 Wairakei Avenue Papamoa Beach 3118 New Zealand

Dr Ann Briggs 87 Pine Hill Road, Ruby Bay RD1 Upper Moutere 7173 NEW ZEALAND Phone: 0064 (0)3 540 3702 Email: [email protected]

Papua New Guinea – PNGCEA

Peter Kants First Assistant Secretary Coporate Services Wing, Policy & Coporate Services Directorate Department of Education Fincorp Haus P. O. Box 446 Waigani NCD PAPUA NEW GUINEA Phone: +675 301 3582 or +675 325 3582 Email: [email protected]

Eva Misitom PO Box 6974 Boroko NCD PAPUA NEW GUINEA Phone: +675 3214720 Fax: +675 3214668 Email: [email protected]

Tonga – TEALS

Dr Seu`ula Johansson Fua Director Institute of Education University of the South Pacific Tonga Campus TONGA Phone: +676 30 192 Email: [email protected]

Dr Seu`ula Johansson Fua Director Institute of Education University of the South Pacific Tonga Campus TONGA Phone: +676 30 192 Email: [email protected]

Australasia


163

Europe Cyprus – CEAS



Malta – MSEAM

Professor Christopher Bezzina, FCCEAM Educational Leadership Programme Department of Education Studies Faculty of Education University of Malta Msida MSD 2080 MALTA Phone: +356 2340 2039 Email: [email protected]

Professor Christopher Bezzina, FCCEAM Educational Leadership Programme Department of Education Studies Faculty of Education University of Malta Msida MSD 2080 MALTA Phone: +356 2340 2039 Email: [email protected]

United Kingdom – BELMAS

Ian Potter Executive Headteacher Bay House School Gomer Lane Gosport PO12 2QP UNITED KINGDOM Phone: +44 (0)23 9250 5202

Richard Davis Business Manager BELMAS, Northchurch Business Centre, 84 Queen Street, Sheffield S1 2DW Tel: +44(0)114 279 9926 Fax: +44(0)114 279 6868 www.belmas.org.uk Registered Charity No. 68989 Registered Company No. 1141941

Dr Linda Hammersley-Fletcher Faculty of Education Manchester Metropolitan University 53 Bonsall Street Manchester M15 6GX UNITED KINGDOM Phone: +44 (0) 161 247 5242 Mobile: +44 (0)7817 119628

164


International Studies in Educational Administration Notes for contributors International Studies in Education Administration (ISEA) has been publishing high quality research articles in the field of educational leadership from across the world for over four decades. It seeks contributions that advance our understanding of the successful management and leadership of educational institutions from early childhood to post compulsory settings in any country of the world. Whilst membership of CCEAM is mainly throughout Commonwealth countries, the circulation of ISEA is global. Articles can be based on empirical, historical or critical traditions, with all methodological approaches welcomed. As the journal is entirely electronic there is scope to present articles that may differ in format from traditional print based journals. Collaborations between several researchers are welcomed and can be accommodated in an entire or partial special issue. It is a scholarly, refereed journal and observes the normal processes of blind review. All manuscripts should be emailed as a Word document to one of the editors: Associate Professor David Gurr – [email protected] Associate Professor Lawrie Drysdale – [email protected] Articles can be of any length and would normally be between 5,000 and 7,000 words in length. They should be formatted in a professional manner adhering to the style of articles published in the journal. Headings and sub-headings should be clearly indicated, and all Tables and Figures should be placed in their preferred position within the text. For review purposes the front page should include the article title, the names of all authors and their institutional affiliation. The second page should include the title, an abstract of up to 300 words, and up to six keywords. Spelling will be checked to conform to the most common usage found in The Oxford Dictionary (www.oxforddictionaries.com). For style, the editors will use as a reference the Style Manual (Commonwealth of Australia, 6th Edition, 2002). For those that don’t have access to this, and useful online tool is the BBC News Style Guide (http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/ journalism/news-style-guide). The publishers reserve the right to copyedit, proof-read and correct all articles for publication. References should conform broadly to the in-text citation style of the American Psychological Society (www.apastyle.org). Articles using other referencing styles will not be reviewed until they conform to the style of the journal. Examples are provided below of the particular style used in ISEA for common citations. Journal article Gurr, D., & Drysdale, L. (2008). Reflections on twelve years of studying the leadership of Victorian schools. International Studies in Educational Administration, 36(2), 22-37. Book Day, C., & Gurr, D. (Eds.) (2014). Leading Schools Successfully: Stories from the field. London, UK: Routledge.


Book chapter Gurr, D. M., & Drysdale, L. G. (2016). Australia: The Principal as Leader – A Review of Australian Principal Research, 2006–2013. In H. Ärlestig, C. Day & O. Johansson (Eds.), A Decade of Research on School Principals: Cases from 24 countries (pp. 187-209). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Conference paper/presentation Gurr, D., & Nicolazzo, M. (2014). Leading Improvement in Literacy. Presentation at the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management Conference, Fredericton, Canada. Web-based Fullan, M. & Quinn, J. (2010). Capacity Building for Whole System Reform (retrieved from www.michaelfullan.ca/media/13435862150.html). Note that doi information can be provided where it is available, and should be placed after the end of the citation. doi:10.3390/soc5010136 Copyright. Papers (including abstracts) accepted and published become the copyright of the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management (CCEAM). This enables the CCEAM and its publisher to ensure full copyright protection and to disseminate the article, and the journal, to the widest possible audience through various formats. Once articles have been published in International Studies in Educational Administration (ISEA) authors are free to use them elsewhere without permission from CCEAM or the publisher, provided that acknowledgement is given to ISEA as the journal of original source of publication. Off-prints. An electronic copy of the journal, in Adobe Acrobat PDF file format, will be provided to authors from which they may make off-prints.

165


| 166

International Studies in Educational Administration Volume 46, No. 1, 2018

Editorial Note DAVID GURR AND LAWRIE DRYSDALE

1

Leadership for the Improvement of a High Poverty/High Minority School ELIZABETH T. MURAKAMI, W. SEAN KEARNEY, LAWRENCE SCOTT AND PRISCILLA ALFARO

2

The Leadership, Culture and Context Nexus: Lessons from the Leadership of Improving Schools DAVID GURR, LAWRIE DRYSDALE, FIONA LONGMUIR AND KIERAN MCCROHAN

22

Four Successive School Leaders’ Response to a High Needs Urban Elementary School Context NATHERN S. OKILWA AND BRUCE G. BARNETT

45

Leadership in Early Childhood Education: Implications for Parental Involvement and Student Success from New Zealand STEPHEN JACOBSON AND ROSS NOTMAN

86

School Leadership and STEM Enactment in a High Needs Secondary School in Belize NOEMI WAIGHT, LORENDA CHISOLM AND STEPHEN JACOBSON

102

How Principals Lead High Needs Schools in Mexico CELINA TORRES-ARCADIA, CÉSAR RODRÍGUEZ-URIBE AND GABRIELA MORA

123

Leading High Needs Schools: Findings from the International School Leadership Development Network DAVID GURR AND LAWRIE DRYSDALE

147

ISSN 1324 1702