Education and Urban Society - UR Research - University of Rochester

Educationhttp://eus.sagepub.com/ and Urban Society

Principal Leadership in Low-Performing Schools : A Closer Look Through the Eyes of Teachers Kara S. Finnigan Education and Urban Society 2012 44: 183 originally published online 28 December 2011 DOI: 10.1177/0013124511431570 The online version of this article can be found at: http://eus.sagepub.com/content/44/2/183

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Education and Urban Society can be found at: Email Alerts: http://eus.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://eus.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://eus.sagepub.com/content/44/2/183.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Feb 6, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jan 8, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Dec 28, 2011 What is This?

Downloaded from eus.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ROCHESTER LIBRARY on May 31, 2012

431570 570FinniganEducation and Urban Society © The Author(s) 2012

EUS44210.1177/0013124511431

Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Principal Leadership in Low-Performing Schools: A Closer Look Through the Eyes of Teachers

Education and Urban Society 44(2) 183–202 © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0013124511431570 http://eus.sagepub.com

Kara S. Finnigan1

Abstract This qualitative study of teachers in three low-performing elementary schools in Chicago reveals that transformational leadership behaviors were important to teacher motivation, affecting whether they believed that they could improve student performance as the accountability policy required. The findings suggest that principal leadership is critical to turning around low-performing schools. Implications include developing policies to hire principals with proven track records and increasing the capacity of current principals to ensure that they are able to support and motivate teachers in low-performing schools. Keywords principal leadership, teacher motivation, low-performing schools, accountability policy, urban schools.

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and prior state accountability policies aim to transform the motivation and capacity of school staff and focus attention on student performance. Accountability policies require and rely on leadership that will focus and motivate those who influence student learning 1

University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA

Corresponding Author: Kara S. Finnigan, University of Rochester, 1-333 Dewey Hall, P.O. Box 270425, Rochester, NY 14627-0425, USA Email: [email protected]


184

Education and Urban Society 44(2)

(Adams & Kirst, 1999; O’Day, 2002), but few studies have examined leadership in low-performing schools and the ways in which it supports or undermines teacher motivation. Examining school-level responses to high-stakes accountability policies is critical to understanding why most schools have not moved out from under NCLB’s sanctions and what states and districts should do to intervene. Principal leadership is particularly crucial under school accountability policies (Elmore, 2001; Kelley, 1998; Sebring & Bryk, 2000), as principals interpret and respond to these policies, as well as support and facilitate school improvement. To bring about change, principals must motivate teachers by communicating goals and fostering commitment to these (Adams & Kirst, 1999). In addition, principals play an important role in changing teachers’ beliefs, including that students are capable of learning and that teachers can improve student performance (Rosenholtz, 1985); these beliefs, in turn, influence teachers’ motivational responses (Abelmann, Elmore, Even, Kenyon, & Marshall, 1999; Fuhrman, 1999; Lipman, 2002). This article is based on qualitative data from teachers in three of Chicago’s low-performing elementary schools. The literature on transformational leadership guides this examination. According to Yukl (1994), “followers of a transformational leader feel trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect toward the leader, and they are motivated to do more than they originally expected to do” (p. 351). Transformational leaders are those who provide instructional leadership, have trusting relationships with staff, support teachers to facilitate organizational improvement, and include staff in decision making (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Fernandez, 1994; Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002; Leithwood, Tomlinson, & Genge, 1996). This study is important given the current policy context that involves accountability sanctions and consequences for school staff, particularly principals. The article allows teachers’ own voices to emerge, providing greater depth to our understanding of what happens in these schools. Without a clearer understanding of leadership and motivation within low-performing schools, policy makers will continue to have limited impact in bringing about the large-scale changes to school and student outcomes as intended by these policies.

Background In the early 1980s, negative views of the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) were in abundance, from Secretary of Education William Bennett referring to it as the “worst school system in the nation” (Bennett, 2001) to the widespread


185

Finnigan

view that it was failing minority and low-income students (Hess, 1994), creating the momentum for sweeping changes to occur in 1988 through the Chicago School Reform Act. This act allowed Local School Councils (LSCs) the authority to hire and fire principals, gave principals the authority to select staff, and provided schools with additional resources (Sebring & Bryk, 2000). After little improvement, the 1995 policy, a precursor to NCLB, recentralized aspects of the earlier reforms, giving the mayor control over CPS and increasing consequences while developing a number of school supports. This study focuses on the most common sanction implemented in Chicago known as probation, which resulted in decreased autonomy, the threat of additional sanctions, and additional support (Hess, 1999; O’Day, 2002). Probation is similar to School Improvement under NCLB. At the time, Chicago’s policy targeted schools based on aggregated student performance on standardized tests. Nearly one quarter of the schools were placed on probation during the first year of the policy.

Method This article examines leadership and motivation in three of Chicago’s lowperforming elementary schools involved in the Chicago School Probation Study, conducted by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Consortium on Chicago School Research.1 The schools include two that moved off probation in the first 5 years and one that remained on probation for more than 5 years. Interviews and focus groups were conducted during multiple multiday visits between 1999 and 2001. A total of 52 interviews and four focus groups were conducted with teachers across the three schools. Additional interviews conducted with principals and external partners are used as a secondary data source. All interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. A coding scheme was developed based upon the related literature and emerging analytical areas. These three K-8 schools were quite similar in many ways. All were located in areas of Chicago known to have higher poverty rates than the rest of the city—and all served high proportions of low-income and low-achieving students. The following paragraphs provide a brief description of each school: Evergreen Elementary2 had a population of approximately 800 students who were mostly Latino (87%). Nearly all students were from lowincome families and the school had a mobility rate of 60%. Evergreen was located in a mostly Mexican community with industrial and commercial businesses nearby. Although the surrounding neighborhood was described as


186


having four rival gangs, gang violence and tensions did not exist in the school. During the course of the study, a new principal was hired after the first principal’s contract was not renewed by its LSC. Bradford Elementary’s 1300 students were a mixed population of Latino and African American students and nearly all were from low-income families. The student mobility rate was 30%. Bradford was in a neighborhood consisting of small single-family homes and rental properties and a few small businesses—the larger businesses had moved out of the community. The community around Bradford was described as having abandoned houses, armed robberies, drug abuse, gun violence, and gang activity. Quincy Elementary was still on probation after 5 years. It had experienced slight improvements in scores, but not enough to move off probationary status. The school’s 500 students were mostly low income and 90% Latino, with a mobility rate of 40%. Quincy was opened to reduce overcrowding, with students bussed from several school boundary areas. This created a perception that Quincy received the most difficult students, both academically and behaviorally.

Findings The following analysis uses the components of transformational leadership to illuminate the practices and behaviors of principals in these low-performing schools, followed by an examination of the ways in which leadership is linked to teacher motivation. This article ends with discussion of the implications of these findings for practice and policy.

Instructional Leadership Instructional leadership encompasses a number of leadership areas relating to the principal’s role in providing direction—from articulating a vision, to setting high expectations and monitoring performance. Clearly defined goals are linked to higher individual performance and positive effects on motivation (Katzell & Thompson, 1990). Beyond goals, developing a vision is crucial, as Owens (2001) argues that developing the vision helps create “the web of shared assumptions, beliefs, and values that unites the group in mutual solidarity” (p.246). Instructional leadership was one of the most important areas of leadership discussed by teachers in the two schools that moved off probation: Evergreen and Bradford. Teachers discussed the instructional leadership of their principals in terms of the vision or direction they provided; the articulation of


187

Finnigan

expectations; the interpretation of the policy and focus on collective action; and the coherence or consistency during these stressful and uncertain times. However, teachers at Quincy indicated that these leadership practices were absent. Evergreen teachers expected their principal to have a vision for the school that would allow it to move off of probationary status. They complained that the principal in place when the school went on probation did not have a long-term vision for improving the school, but focused on more immediate strategies of test preparation and targeting students who were performing just below the probation cutoff. Her perceived lack of vision, coupled with what teachers described as an inadequate understanding of teaching and learning, frustrated teachers. A sixth-grade teacher summed up the views of many: I think that, quite frankly, the current administrator or administration is not either capable or willing to do the things necessary to get us off probation. And her heart is not into all aspects of being a leader. I don’t see leadership. Teachers at both Evergreen and Bradford also discussed the need for the principal to be clear about her expectations of them. At Evergreen the change in principal was welcomed by teachers because of the second principal’s strong communication skills. A second-grade teacher emphasized the principal’s nonthreatening leadership style: [Principal] has very high expectations for all of us. And she makes that very clear. But she doesn’t make it a threat. It’s not like, you know, if you don’t get all your kids at grade level you’re going to be fired. . . She’s very matter of fact. “You guys are a great staff. I’m expecting great things from you.” Not that she says that but just in all of her notes, she’s very, very positive. . . Constructive, that’s the best word for her, and fair. And she doesn’t play favorites, and it’s not that she expects more of others and less of, you know what I mean? She expects you all to do what she needs you to do. One teacher stated that some teachers left when the new principal arrived because of her high expectations. Similarly, teachers at Bradford discussed the principal’s high expectations and the pressure she put on them to improve. This principal was described as a hard worker who pushed staff to do the


188


same. An eighth-grade teacher linked this increased pressure to their improved scores and removal from probation: One reason, I think, because the principal knew if those scores didn’t go up that she and probably all of us would not have jobs, is that she started demanding more from the teachers . . . and you could feel and see the difference [after she demanded more of them], that the planning and the ideas they were coming up with, trying to reach our students. Principals’ responses to probation and their articulation of a strategy to bring about school improvement were important to teachers’ own responses. At Evergreen, teachers reported that the first principal copied student test scores for each class and placed these in teachers’ mailboxes, causing teachers to feel embarrassed in front of their peers and blamed for probation. The principal’s distribution of scores without discussing the results symbolized to teachers that individual teachers were the problem, rather than suggesting that this was a school-level challenge that they would attack collectively. Teachers at Bradford also said that their principal increased pressure by displaying and comparing classroom scores, as well as including student achievement data in teachers’ formal evaluations. However, teachers had a different response to these actions and were quick to admit that previously they had not taken the test seriously. In part, their responses may have been linked to the fact that the principal had been persuaded by teachers to focus on growth rather than absolute scores. Teachers described this shift in focus toward their classroom-level scores: Sixth-grade teacher: The principal definitely wanted to see growth. And she is totally fine with pointing out where growth is not happening . . . Second-grade teacher: And then what [Principal] expects at the end is not that they are on grade level now but they moved a year’s growth. So, that is what we are accountable for, a year’s growth. Now there are circumstances where they might be special education, they are being referred, things like that. But we are accountable to move them a whole year, whatever stage they are on. The principal’s focus on teachers’ classroom scores became even more apparent when she required each teacher to submit a spreadsheet sorted by student from highest to lowest test score. One teacher indicated that this


189

Finnigan

spreadsheet was required to allow the school to develop a “watch list” of students that may “fall between the cracks.” Most teachers did not find the principal’s efforts to hold them accountable for growth in their students’ scores to be problematic. This may have been because this was only one component of their evaluation or because in the past they had been frustrated by not receiving scores quickly enough, which changed as a result of the policy. Receiving the scores promptly, as well using them in student promotion decisions, led teachers to focus more on the test scores, an underlying goal of the policy. Finally, teachers at both Bradford and Evergreen emphasized the critical role that principals played in providing consistency to their instructional programs, specifically their reading program. At Bradford, teachers (particularly those in the primary grades) said that the principal’s bringing a new literacy program to the school added coherence to their work. Previously, teachers were not required to use the same curricular or instructional strategies even across one grade level. After an initial transition during which participation was voluntary, the principal required that all primary teachers implement the reading program. Through this requirement and a requirement that every teacher include a scheduled reading block, the school became both focused on literacy development and more consistent across classrooms. At Evergreen, the new principal, hired after probation, was a staunch supporter of a specific reading series and seen as a resource for teachers because of her prior classroom experience. Like Bradford, her push to adopt this program led to a degree of consistency across grade levels, particularly in the lower grades, and teachers appreciated this change. One teacher suggested that allowing people to do whatever they wanted may work with a veteran staff, but not with a novice staff. A third-grade teacher contrasted this principal’s efforts with the previous principal who wouldn’t “put her foot down and say ‘this is how we’re doing reading at this school.’” The type of coherence and consistency across the school, along with high expectations and a vision for improvement set these principals apart from the principal at Quincy.

Teacher–Principal Trust Consideration of leaders who show concern about the feelings of subordinates and treat people with respect and dignity is positively associated with motivation and acceptance (Chung, 1977; Vroom, 1964). This area of leadership may be especially crucial in low-performing schools. In fact, Bryk and Schneider (2002) found that “relational trust,” conceptualized as the inter-


190


play among respect, competence, personal regard, and integrity, reduces uncertainty and vulnerability in contexts involving external pressures and demands. In addition, they found that relational trust is critical to school improvement. Trust (or the lack thereof) proved to be important for teachers in Evergreen (which moved off probation) and Quincy (which remained on probation). Two aspects of trust were frequently discussed in these two schools: effective management and respect. Effective management can be a key aspect of trust between teachers and principals (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Effective management refers to the day-to-day operations, including the schedule, structuring, and related activities. Interestingly, many teachers discussed the interconnection between respect and management, that is, if the principal respected them and valued their expertise she would not micromanage. An effective manager is someone who keeps things running smoothly, does not micromanage and shows respect for the expertise of teachers. At Evergreen, the second principal fit this definition, as she was described as “punctual,” “organized,” “focused,” and having her “finger on the pulse of what’s going on.” The following are some of the teachers’ comments about her positive leadership in this area: Eighth-grade teacher: And under the new leadership, I think there is more responsibility for structure within the school—a consistent structure. It’s greatly improved here. It makes my job more difficult, because there is a lot more work, but I personally am glad to do it for [the Principal]. Second-grade teacher: Everything is just better. Just the communication is clearer about everything. Truly. I mean, you know you’re going to cover this and this and this by this date and I need this by 2:30 on this day and this needs to be done by 9:15 on this day. It’s just great. These views of the second principal are contrasted with the views of the first principal about whom teachers complained that she was not effective because she changed classroom assignments without justification, did not communicate with them, and was inconsistent. Teachers at Quincy focused on the ineffective management at their school. Several teachers commented that a high level of disorganization filtered down to their classrooms. As one third-grade teacher said, “I mean, you see all these interruptions and the turn arounds and switches and the changes, which I really can’t point a finger at anyone or anything that’s causing it, but


191

Finnigan

it’s just something I will never understand.” As an eighth-grade teacher said, “We have so many interruptions…..It’s just so frustrating. And then somebody will come to that door, I promise you, twenty times in an hour and three of them will want exactly the same thing.” A bilingual upper grade teacher was more direct, “There’s a high level of disorganization at this school, starting with the top—the administration.” The principal at Quincy focused on two things: monitoring lesson plans and monitoring teacher compliance with the reading and math program. Beyond management, whether the principals respected teachers was important at all three schools. For example, at Evergreen the respect and personal relationships the second principal developed with both teachers and students were critical. “It’s amazing the respect that she commands,” said one teacher. She continued, “I haven’t run into anyone that has bad things to say about her. And she remembers everyone and she makes really personal connections with the children.” This high level of mutual respect and strong personal relationships, however, were absent at Quincy, where many teachers thought the principal did not respect them as professionals. An upper grade bilingual teacher linked this to the school’s inadequate resources: “The respect that should be there for the person that is on the frontline isn’t there. If you respect them, then when we say we need books for the kids that should be taken care of.” The principal’s lack of respect at Quincy extended to undermining the authority of teachers in front of students. One teacher gave the example of a student calling her a name. After taking the student to the principal’s office, she describes the events that followed: And [Principal] cracked up, she laughed, and she said, ‘well, you know, [Teacher], you’re not going to be able to stop him from cussing all together. What you should do is try to get him to cuss a little less.’ So [student’s] standing there looking, saying, ‘okay, I can call you anything I want’. This same teacher gave another example of the principal coming into her room and reprimanding her in front of her class: “I don’t care who you are. . . You’re not going to walk in my room and take my authority and then just walk out. . . She comes in and she says those snide and nasty things and then she walks out.” The principal at Quincy was considered someone who did not appreciate or feel empathy toward teachers. According to an eighth-grade teacher any praise offered was reserved for a handful of teachers:


192


When it comes down to giving out accolades and that kind of stuff, it’s like completely skipped over, but “Mrs. Anderson did this,” and “Mrs. Blackwell did this,” and “Mr. Eberly did this.” Those are the only three people that do anything in this school. We go out of our way, upside down, turn our lives upside down. I mean, I’m up twelve to one o’clock every night. . . Twelve to one o’clock we do stuff and it’s like we don’t do anything. A third-grade teacher who taught the retained students told the story of her students taking the test in January to move on to fourth grade. She said, “six of my students pass out of the 13, which is very good. Did I get a pat on the back? No, I was told that I could do better.” This teacher believed the principal did not really care about teachers. While respect and personal relationships were important to the teachers in both Evergreen and Quincy, teachers placed less of an emphasis on these at Bradford. In fact, teachers admitted that they did not feel strong relational trust with the principal. Three teachers commented on the lack of respect for teachers and praise for their hard work, saying, “there is not enough respect for the individual person” and “They never call you to say what a wonderful job you are doing.” A fourth-grade teacher said, “there’s not a lot of support and morale here so I think people get knocked down a lot. I mean, it’s so hard, you know, that you need a pat on the back.” A common area of frustration was related to a lack of administrative support around classroom discipline. Concerns in this area, however, were outweighed by teachers’ views that the principal was passionate about the students. Illustrating this distinction, one teacher described the principal’s love of students immediately following her complaint that the pressure from the principal can cause teachers to feel attacked. She added that’s not to say, I mean, you know, the principal is passionate about the children doing well. And I mean she cares as much as anyone I’ve ever met that they do well. You know the pressure on her has to be enormous and the pressure on us has to be enormous. Another teacher commented on the principal’s focus on students: “I mean, we have improved so much that when they show us our scores from 1998, it’s unbelievable. So we are doing things right and [Principal] cares so much about the kids, truly.”


193

Finnigan

Principal Support for Change This area of leadership is supported by personal and material resource theory. Research has found that effective principals encourage teachers to take risks and try new methods of teaching in their classrooms, challenge the status quo, and bring teachers into contact with new ideas (Goldring & Sullivan, 1996; Sebring & Bryk, 2000). Effective principals are described as strategic in their attempts to acquire resources—both money and ideas—from the environment (Bryk, Sebring, Kerbow, Rollow, & Easton, 1998). At Evergreen the principal was viewed as a resource, herself, because of her prior experiences as a classroom teacher. Teachers viewed her as someone they could go to for ideas and support. A third-grade teacher summed up her important role in supporting them: She’s got a lot of classroom experience, which is really, really important. Because as a teacher when you approach her with a problem she can totally relate to it from a classroom perspective and she gives you feedback based on that. So try this, try this, try this, try this . . . that makes a huge difference. . . If you need anything, she’s a real person who will give you real solutions. Teachers viewed her as a legitimate leader because of the resources she provided in terms of her knowledge and skills around curriculum and instruction. The principal at Bradford was viewed more as a broker than a resource provider. Teachers viewed her as supportive because she provided resources, although some of the upper grade teachers complained that they did not have access to copiers or supplies. Teachers also believed that they received adequate professional development (PD) as well as training through the school’s full-time literacy coordinator. The principal required that grade level teachers meet together twice a week during common preparatory times and that one of these meetings was with the literacy coordinator. This requirement was viewed positively by teachers, as illustrated by one second-grade teacher’s comments: This year we have five preps [a week]. And two of those preps are spent with other colleagues, learning, discussing, sharing. And last year really the only time we did that is if we took a class through [the literacy coordinator]. And now this year it is mandatory. On Mondays, I go and meet with the second grade teachers with [literacy coordina-


194


tor]. . . She shows us new things. . . And then on Wednesdays, we meet with our grade level to discuss the same type of issues. An added form of support Bradford teachers was the “pulling out” of students during reading. In some classes, particularly the benchmark grades, the literacy coordinator and other non-classroom teachers pulled out small groups of lower performing students, leading teachers to feel that the school was taking collective responsibility for student performance. As one teacher said, “It really helped me out and made me feel that I wasn’t the only one responsible for these 21 kids.” Most teachers would ask someone other than the principal for assistance with specific problems, particularly around student learning, but considered the principal to be someone who listened to ideas, addressed their concerns, and was supportive. Although teachers felt supported at the two schools that had moved off of probation (Bradford and Evergreen), the most common complaint by teachers at Quincy was that the principal did not provide adequate resources or PD. Most teachers did not receive curricular materials or were given these resources long after the school year had begun. An eighth-grade teacher complained that she was unable to assign homework because the school did not have enough books. In addition, the bilingual teachers reported a lack of Spanish materials. Not receiving classroom materials promptly was critical because the school was implementing a scripted reading program. Without the “script,” teachers could not begin the program until months after school started. The following are representative responses regarding Quincy’s inadequate resources: Upper grade bilingual teacher: This is my third week here and every year it’s the same thing. There are no books. We can’t make copies from the copier. We don’t have books and we can’t make copies. Eighth-grade teacher: It’s very, very easy for [the students] to break if they don’t get what they need. And some of them are just sitting here on a daily basis asking you, “please,” you know, “teach me something.” And you’re sitting here having to apologize because you don’t have books, you don’t have resources, you don’t have anything. One teacher had hoped to familiarize herself with the program ahead of time, but received the materials during an in-service a few days before the first day of school. Another teacher summed up the frustration of teachers by pointing out that the school’s probationary status was linked to the inadequate materials and implying that the principal was at fault:


195

Finnigan

Eighth-grade teacher: Well, you know what, I’m not an expert on anything and I’m not going to say 100% this is it. But I do believe if we had all the supplies, the books, you know, all that stuff, access to the internet, all of these things, I don’t believe we would still be on probation. But I’ve been here for four years and I have yet to have all the books that I need. I have yet to have worksheets, resources. . . I’m just saying if you want your school off probation, you don’t walk around the school all day long trying to do little bitty things to jab at teachers. . . You will go somewhere and you will get resources and you will give it to teachers and say, “Whatever you need. Here it is.” Several teachers at Quincy complained that they did not receive training on the school’s reading and math programs and were frustrated that they had to attend mediocre workshops and presentations during a shortened day for schoolwide staff meetings when they could have been collaborating with colleagues. The principal cited a board policy that would not allow them to meet with each other during that time, but teachers were skeptical.

Inclusive Leadership Inclusive leadership broadly refers to shared governance with teachers or parents. Through inclusive leadership, teachers acquire the power to make decisions that will support their efforts (Enderlin-Lampe, 1997; Lashway, 1999). One study found that inclusive leadership (or “shared governance”) motivated teachers (Blase & Blase, 2001), whereas another study found that related leadership areas, including empowering teachers, involving them in decision making, and fostering teamwork, influenced expectancy (Hipp, 1995). No evidence of inclusive leadership was found at Evergreen or Quincy. In fact, when teachers discussed different decisions in the school, including strategic planning, they spoke of a more centralized approach that involved either the principal, alone, or a few select administrators. Although teachers did not appear to be included in the governance of Evergreen in an authentic way, they did not complain about this limited role. At Quincy, however, a teacher complained that teachers “didn’t have a voice.” In contrast, although Bradford’s principal did not exhibit inclusive leadership, a few noteworthy examples existed. Several teachers took on leadership roles in their effort to align the curriculum with state standards. A few teachers provided examples of involvement in particular decisions, for example, the decision to select an external partner and development of the improvement plan. However, the final decisions were made by the principal or her administrative team. An organizational structure of grade level chairs allowed


196


teachers to voice concerns or at least feel that communication lines were open. In reality, these chairs were primarily a conduit through which the principal communicated information to teachers. Thus, even in Bradford, inclusive leadership was minimal.

The Link Between Leadership and Motivation Transformational leadership behaviors are important to understanding the extent to which individuals are motivated toward collective goals of the organization. Motivation is important in the work environment because it is related to “the arousal, direction, magnitude, and maintenance of effort” (Katzell & Thompson, 1990, p.144). Furthermore, motivation is one of three factors (along with ability and situation) that affect job performance (Rowan, 1996). One motivation theory, expectancy theory, emphasizes the importance of forward-looking beliefs about what will occur (Lawler, 1973). This study focuses on the effort → performance expectancy or whether a person believes that his or her effort will lead to achievement of a particular goal or performance because expectancy has been found to have strong and significant effect on student performance (Enderlin-Lampe, 1997; Kelley, 1998; Kelley, Heneman, & Milanowski, 2002; Lee, Bryk, & Smith, 1993; Ross, 1998; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). As Mohrman and Lawler (1996) suggest, the person must first consider whether or not they have the skills and knowledge required. While some teachers referred to the training they had received, they were more likely to discuss the will and capacity of their colleagues. Teachers at both Evergreen and Bradford reported that ineffective and unmotivated teachers were pushed out or left voluntarily after the new principal was hired. Teachers viewed this turnover as positive, emphasizing the need for energetic new staff to help their schools improve. Mohrman and Lawler also argue that the individual must have a clear understanding about the nature of the task and must view it as attainable. Instructional leadership—vision and direction, clear expectations, and coherence and consistency—was important to teachers in Evergreen and Bradford. This type of leadership seemed particularly critical with regards to teachers’ knowing what they needed to do to get off probation. In fact, subtle differences in how things were handled, most likely in combination with the rapport between the principal and teachers, made a difference. For example, at Bradford and Evergreen the principals each copied and disseminated student performance data by classroom. At Evergreen, teachers felt blamed and demoralized (under this first principal), while at Bradford, teachers felt focused and, in some ways, energized by the principal’s response. One teacher at Bradford


197

Finnigan

noted that their new school improvement plan goals were more realistic and attainable, highlighting aspects of expectancy theory: Now they’re more realistic . . . if you have them too high and you don’t reach them, you feel like you’re not doing anything and the students do too. So you make them more realistic and hope you can go above your goals. The literacy programs at Evergreen and Bradford were also examples of ways in which teachers were amenable to putting their efforts toward new strategies after viewing the outcomes as attainable as a result of seeing improvements in student outcomes. This was not the case at Quincy where the perception was that moving students to grade level was unattainable. Finally, Mohrman and Lawler point out that the individual must believe that they have support for the task. Support in these schools was in the form of effective management, respect, and organizational resources. Teachers at both Evergreen and Quincy emphasized teacher–principal trust, primarily in the forms of effective management and respect. At Evergreen, principal support was linked to the individual role that the principal played as a resource for teachers as someone they could go to for support and ideas when they faced classroom challenges. The principal at Bradford, however, was a resource provider, providing teachers with materials, training, and new ideas through collaboration with colleagues so that they developed additional strategies and techniques to improve student learning. At Quincy, conversely, low levels of trust and a lack of support were evident. As one teacher said, “I survive here, I don’t teach.” In reference to her principal, she said that she was told that she could not get a superior rating because of the school being on probation. When asked how that made her feel, she said, “Like you’re beat down. You’re buried under this hole and you’re never going to climb out.” At Quincy a lack of trust undermined teachers’ motivation to work toward school improvement. Furthermore, the lack of support and “micromanagement” led to disengagement and demoralization. In an inclusive leadership environment “control is spread throughout the organization, all organizational members focus on organizational performance and contribute to strategy and direction, and employees are able to influence decisions that shape their expectancies” (Mohrman & Lawler, 1996, p. 126). Of these three schools, only Bradford exhibited inclusive leadership to a small degree. That inclusive leadership was not evident in the probation schools may be linked to the fact that organizations in crisis centralize rather than decentralize their operations (Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981).


198


Conclusion and Implications The stories of Evergreen and Bradford illustrate the importance of trust, instructional leadership, and support to teachers in low-performing schools, whereas the story of Quincy illustrates that when principals do not exhibit these leadership behaviors teachers become unmotivated, frustrated, and even angry with their school’s inadequate leadership. This qualitative study of low-performing schools in Chicago highlights the crucial role of the principals in schools placed on probation under school accountability sanctions. This study has important implications for practice. To bring about school change, principals are in a key position to improve the performance of teachers by improving their motivation. The study suggests that principals should focus on providing instructional leadership, developing teacher–principal trust, and supporting change. Unfortunately principal capacity in these areas in persistently failing schools is particularly weak, as the story of Quincy illustrates. Ongoing PD of practicing principals—or even the removal of principals who do not exhibit these leadership behaviors—may be necessary to ensure that schools under sanction have the leaders they need. This PD would need to cover a range of areas from providing principals with the opportunity to develop and communicate their vision and expectations, to helping them understand the steps they can take to create a culture of trust, respect, and support. The study also has policy implications as the findings suggest that accountability policies should more directly focus on the leadership of principals. Although the recent School Improvement Grants from the U.S. Department of Education focus on firing principals in low-performing schools, scant attention has been paid to the attracting and retaining principals with proven track records in low-performing schools or to increasing the capacity of probation school principals. In essence, the focus on firing principals creates a perverse incentive to get rid of principals to qualify for these federal dollars. These types of accountability policies should involve capacity building for principals, as the CPS did in requiring that a probation manager worked with the principal to improve leadership (see Finnigan, Bitter, & O’Day, 2009; Finnigan & O’Day, 2003). As McLaughlin (1990) noted years ago, it is the combination of threat and support that is necessary. Targeting transformational leadership areas and building capacity of schools leaders through ongoing mentoring and PD (of principals) in these areas may be a way of improving teacher expectancy, and as a result performance, in low-performing schools.


199

Finnigan

The passage of NCLB and current political climate suggests that accountability policies are here to stay, although changes to NCLB will likely occur with its reauthorization. Future attention to school accountability policies should focus on ensuring that teachers in probation schools are led and supported by high quality principals—not just new principals—to increase the likelihood that all students, including poor and minority students in urban districts, receive the high quality education intended by these policies. Author’s Note The author would like to thank Jennifer A. O’Day and John Q. Easton for their guidance and mentorship on the Chicago School Probation Study, as well as the CPS teachers who took the time to share their perspectives and experiences within these schools.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The data collected for this study were part of the Chicago School Probation Study funded by the Spencer Foundation (PI, Jennifer O’Day). All views expressed herein are those of the author.

Notes 1. The author was Project Manager for the study. 2. Pseudonyms are used throughout.

References Abelmann, C. H., Elmore, R. F., Even, J., Kenyon, S., & Marshall, J. (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer? Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education. Adams, J. E., Jr., & Kirst, M. W. (1999). New demands and concepts for educational accountability: Striving for results in an era of excellence. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational administration (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


200


Bennett, A. (2001). The history, politics, and theory of action of the Chicago probation policy. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2001). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S., & Easton, J. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Chung, K. H. (1977). Motivational theory and practices. Columbus, OH: Grid. Elmore, R. F. (2001). Psychiatrists and lightbulbs: Educational accountability and the problem of capacity. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Enderlin-Lampe, S. (1997). Shared decision making in schools: Effect on teacher efficacy. Education, 118(1), 150-156. Finnigan, K. S., Bitter, C., & O’Day, J. (2009). Improving low-performing schools through external assistance: Lessons from Chicago and California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(7). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v17n7/ Finnigan, K., & O’Day, J. (2003). External support to schools on probation: Getting a leg up? Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education and Consortium on Chicago School Research. Fuhrman, S. H. (1999). The new accountability. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Goldring, E. B., & Sullivan, A. V. (1996). Beyond the boundaries: Principals, parents and communities shaping the school environment. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hess, G. A., Jr. (1999). Expectations, opportunity, capacity, and will: The four essential components of Chicago school reform. Educational Policy, 13, 494-517. Hess, G. A., Jr. (1994). Chicago school reform: A response to unmet needs of students at risk. In R. J. Rossi (Ed.), Schools and students at risk: Context and framework for positive change (pp. 207-228). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Hipp, K. A. (1995). Exploring relationships between principals’ leadership behaviors and teachers’ sense of efficacy in Wisconsin middle schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI. Katzell, R. A., & Thompson, D. E. (1990). Work motivation: Theory and practice. American Psychologist, 45(2), 144-153.


201

Finnigan

Kelley, C. (1998). The Kentucky school-based performance award program: Schoollevel effects. Educational Policy, 12, 305-324. Kelley, C., Heneman, H., & Milanowski, A. (2002). Teacher motivation and schoolbased performance awards. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 372-401. Lashway, L. (1999). Holding schools accountable for achievement. ERIC Digest, 130. Retrieved from http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest130.html Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Lee, V. E., Bryk, A. S., & Smith, J. B. (1993). The organization of effective secondary schools. Review of Research in Education, 19, 171-267. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Fernandez, A. (1994). Transformational leadership and teachers’ commitment to change. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts (pp. 77-98). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers’ motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 94-119. Leithwood, K., Tomlinson, D., & Genge, M. (1996). Transformational school leadership. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 785-840). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lipman, P. (2002). Chicago school policy and the politics of race: Toward a discourse of equity and justice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The RAND change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researchers, 19(9), 11-16. Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. E. (1996). Motivation for school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & J. A. O’Day (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 115-143). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 293-329. Owens, R. G. (2001). Organizational behavior in education: Instructional leadership and school reform (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of Education, 93, 352-388. Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. E. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Expectations in the classroom (Vol. 7, 49-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Rowan, B. (1996). Standards as incentives for instructional reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & J. A. O’Day (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 195-225). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


202


Sebring, P. B., & Bryk, A. S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 440-443. Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501-524. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248. Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: John Wiley. Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bio Kara S. Finnigan is an associate professor of education policy at the University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, United States. She has written extensively on the topics of low-performing schools, accountability, leadership, motivation, and choice. Finnigan’s research blends perspectives in education, sociology, and political science; employs qualitative and quantitative methods; and focuses on urban school districts.
