School and District Leadership: No Child Left Behind Policy Brief, Thesis Paper Example

The Question in this category focuses on the integration of ethical principles with professional practice in the student’s field. Students are expected to defend a personal philosophy of ethical practice using discipline-specific core values and/or essential principles and practices in their field.

Introduction

The role of principals was highly linked to leadership.  Such leadership was to be shared among a team of individuals, each with their own skills.  If school leadership was the responsibility of a “leadership team” as opposed to a lone leader, the various responsibilities of the job was adequately addressed (Marzano, 2005).

Literature Review

Among those who followed the concept of shared leadership was Robert Marzano (2005), who felt that a leadership team could best be developed and maintained within a “purposeful community.” He argued that a strong leadership team was the natural outgrowth of a purposeful community, and a necessary condition for designing an effective leadership team (Marzano, 2005).  Schmoker was another who believed that the right kind of continuous, structured teacher collaboration improved the quality of teaching and paid big dividends in student learning and professional morale in virtually any setting (Schmoker, 2005).

Richard Elmore (2000) stated that the purpose of leadership was to guide and direct instructional improvement in schools.  He defined leadership in stipulations of instruction as far more focused than most conceptions, and went on to suggest that literature on the principals’ role was overwhelming in assuming that principals should embody all the traits and skills to remedy every defect in their schools.  He posited that the principals should be: 1) in close touch with their communities, inside and outside of school; 2) masters of human relations, attending to all the conflicts and disagreements that might arise among students, among teachers, and among all school community members; 3) respectful of the authority of district administrators and crafty at deflecting administrative instructions that disrupt teachers’ autonomy; and 4) maintain an orderly school, and so on (Elmore, 2000).

Elmore asked, “Why not focus leadership on instructional improvement, and define everything else as instrumental to it?” The skills and knowledge that would matter then would be connected to the improvement of instruction and student performance.  As standards-based reform forced this question, leadership became instrumental to improvement.  The dissemination of knowledge was required for large-scale improvement, and imperative for developing models of distributed leadership, and was based on five principles: 1) leaders that improved instructional practice and performance, regardless of their role; 2) instructional improvement that required continuous learning; 3) learning that required modeling; 4) expertise that required learning and improvements, not from the formal dictates of the institution; and 5) authority that required reciprocity of accountability and capacity (Elmore, 2000).

Discussion

This kind of leadership was based on multiple sources of guidance and direction, following the expertise in an organization (Elmore, 2000). It meant that the job of administrative leaders was primarily to enhance the skills and knowledge of people in the organization, creating a common culture of expectations around the use of those skills and knowledge, holding the various pieces of the organization together in a productive relationship to each other, as well as holding individuals accountable for their contributions for the desired result (Elmore, 2000).

Irvin Buchen (2004) agreed that the new reality accounted for the increase in distributed leadership.  He stated that schools had to become more cooperative, collective, and collaborative.  Principal and teacher leadership teams have absorbed and solved many problems (Buchen, 2004).  Leadership required a different way of looking at the roles and responsibilities of the major actors in a school district.  Those that have adopted this approach have shown great gains on students’ scores, as administrators shifted their attention from monitoring to discussing student outcomes and expectations on a regular basis (Castallo, 2001).

The types of data collected have determined the kinds of decisions principals and school communities needed to make.  Most schools have collected three primary types of data, schools with a fourth, perception or attitudinal data, collected these sporadically:

1) demographic data such as gender, ethnicity, identification number, number of years in the district, attendance, teacher certification, and school enrollment; 2) achievement data including student results on state assessments, district tests, and teacher-developed tests; and 3) instructional processes including information about the curriculum, interventions the students experienced, the teachers, and so on; 4) perception data including individual views, values, and beliefs about where people work and learn, which could be gathered through questionnaires, interviews, and observations (Armstrong & Anthes, 2001).

The school principal has become “sandwiched” between faculty, parents, and students on one side and the central office, superintendent, and board on the other (Owen, 2006). The advent of empowered parents and high standards for all, accompanied by shrinking resources and societal pressure to “fix schools,” has moved the job of the principal close to “undoable” (Owen, 2006).  Site-based decision-making, mandating the inclusion of parents and community members on a variety of school and district committees was a component of the NCLB.  In some cases, this practice has been beneficial, resulting in positive collaboration and greater community support.  The push to incorporate the community into schools has resulted in parents willing to challenge the school’s actions, thereby increasing conflict and creating power struggles that diverted attention from the primary task of education.  Decision making needed to be understood according to Amy Gutman (1987) as the politicization of education.  Gutman (1987) stated, “To prevent education from being repressive, we must defend a principled limit on both political and parent authority, a limit that in practice required parents and governments to cede some educational authority to professional educators.” The exact amount of educational authority to cede to professional educators was difficult to identify and negotiate (Owens, 2006).  Part of this was the principal’s balancing act between autocratic and distributive leadership as elaborated below.

Arthur Blumberg (1986) vividly described the principal’s dilemma in decision making:

It is always a balancing act because there are so many pressure groups.  More so than ever before, and the funny thing is that we have made it happen that way. We have really pushed the idea that everyone should be involved in the schools. So now I have so many different constituencies out there with so many different interests that my problem is to try and keep them appeased.

The educational administrator has been caught in the middle, working within an emotionally charged environment to satisfy the constituency while raising test scores and balancing the budget (Owens, 2006).  Jane Armstrong and Katy Anthes (2001) identified schools successful in using data for decision-making and improvement, as being schools that used their district resources, created a school structure where data use was embedded in the daily schedule, and utilized staff expertise to develop data analysis skills.

Prior to the act, many of the schools across the country were struggling with test scores, students reading at their intended level, school dropout, and providing resources to students.  Schools did not have curriculum designed around preparing students for higher education, or the real world.  In addition, the achievement gap between minorities, specifically African American students (Donnor, Shockley, & Kant, 2010), and Caucasian students graduating, or reaching the same grade levels, was getting worse.  Braun et al., believe that the state reforms efforts have not been enough to adequately reduce the achievement gaps between Black and White students, as test-based accountability is the only method used in justifying continuing with the policy.  (Braun, Chapman, & Vezzu, 2010) According to Blank, the goal of NCLB, “with the inception of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a core purpose of federal education policy has been to improve public education provided in schools serving students from economically disadvantaged families.” (Blank, 2011) With the implementation of the act, in some cases statistics have shown that test scores have improved in some schools, but the gap is still big, as well as the academic performance is still low for students.  The biggest problem that surrounds the purpose of this paper is that the concept of NCLB is by focusing on test scores it fixes the problems in the school. “Concerns have also been raised regarding unintended consequences such as the narrowing of the curriculum, teaching to the test and focusing attention on those students whose perceived score is near but below the proficiency standard.” (Braun, Chapman, & Vezzu, 2010) However it overlooks and undermines higher achieving students, forcing students to stoop low for a leveled playing field with low achieving students to reach higher, negating the time and attention needed in helping to develop their minds.

The research focused on the main goals of the Act (closing the gap) is currently limited.  Instead of examining averages, there is a need for embracing a new approach of research: the impact of the Act on different groups of children: minorities, low socio-economic status, under-achievers, and over-achievers.  This way, the author of the current study could determine which groups benefited from NCLB, and whether or not the Act promotes social justice in education.

The thinking of the majority of these principals also agreed with the empirical studies of Richard Castallo (2001), who claimed schools that adopted this kind of approach showed greater gains in their students’ scores, as administrators shifted their attention from monitoring to discussing student outcomes and expectations on a regular basis.  For professional development, principals wanted to create a learning culture where teachers learned, solved problems, examined methods of instruction, and undertook professional development based on their needs.

Other key responses about their practices included a focus on children, collaboration, creating professional learning communities, identifying best practices within their own school, and using data to drive teaching and learning.  Of the strategies that did not work for these principals, several stood out: blaming teachers, parents, students; identifying teachers who resist change; and developing programs with heavy schedules. One principal had at least 6 different schedules to consider.

For greater accountability, most of the principals said they used data to set goals, identify targets, align high-stakes assessments, and improve schools by increasing time allotted for classes.  Overall, school improvement was about using data to drive instructional practices.  A data analysis would be used to decide on an instructional program or school model such as Success for All (Slavin), Accelerated Schools (Levin), or School Development (Comer), etc.  To launch a new program, money and training were needed for teachers and staff.  Then the instructional program or school model had to be reviewed.  If proven effective, these programs had to be sustained through a budget process where all stakeholders were asked for input and/or approval on the amount of money to spend, etc.

While all of the principals supported NCLB in general, and accountability in particular, several issues stood out: 1) Asian American principals were concerned with the policies and procedures of NCLB, since their decision making and practices were driven by greater accountability; 2) European white principals also stated the importance of accountability as a measure of their roles; 3) African American and Latino principals, on the other hand, were more concerned with compliance with the laws; 4) African Americans based their expectations for principals on their cultural norms of ethnic connections and folk culture; 5) Latinos were more community oriented, focused on being part of their community and working through the community.  Most Puerto Ricans understood the system, yet identified themselves as Latinos.  Those who were Columbian, Cuban, etc., did not revert to their cultural roots necessarily, but used the community structure of what the community members expected as a way to deliver services; 6) European whites, as the mainstream or dominant ethnic group, knew their power domains and how to collaborate with diverse ethnic groups, especially in requisites of the populations they served.

The research of Min Zhou (2011) was useful in explaining the similar perspectives of European white and Asian American principals.  Her research indicated that Asians born in the U.S. who have lived their lives amidst the white middle class, speak accent-less English and English only, interact with whites, and consider themselves as an indistinguishable part of white middle class suburbia (Zhou, 2011).  This assimilation into mainstream culture by the second generation accorded with the backgrounds of most of the Asian-American principals in the study, of whom all were Chinese, except for one Hmong.  While two Chinese-American principals of the second generation told moving stories about how their childhood experiences had shaped them, references to the influence of their childhoods were noticeably absent when these same principals responded to whether they had drawn from their social or cultural domains in their role as principals.  Zhou (2011) stated that “ethnic identity associated with a homeland has become blurred among the second or third generations, who have lost their ancestral languages, inter-married at rates far exceeding the national average, and are no longer involved with their communities on a daily basis, thus making their ethnicity symbolic”(p. 112).

Of the total number of principals, the African American and Latino principals were the most concerned with meeting the Adequate Yearly Progress requirements.  Due to greater accountability and in order to be in compliance, these principals changed their leadership roles profoundly over the years.  The majority of African American and Latino principals thought they needed more familiarity with the laws because it would make them more strategic and deliberate in improving schools.  They sensed the urgency in increasing student achievement.  The African American principals were the largest among all the cultural groups to state that the laws affected their practices and affected their communities.  These principals had become became more reflective; gained a greater sense of leadership, especially shared leadership; used data to drive their decisions; and sustained instructional leadership teams in English language arts and math; and had learned to align curriculum with assessments.

At least eight of the 36 principals stated that one of the challenges in implementing the laws was that there was no plan or blueprint in place so principals would know how to achieve the goal of having all students be proficient.  Principals also complained about sustaining school programs without adequate funding.  The Blueprint for Reform (2010) was supposed to be exactly that, a blueprint to reform the NCLB.  At the time of the study it was still too soon to tell how effective this blueprint had been, although the Obama administration claimed that student achievement had increased.

Mostly the African American and Latino principals noted that there were very few public schools serving large populations of poor students that had been able to meet the requirements of NCLB.  Yet of all of the principals who expressed concern that policies and procedures were not working to equalize the playing field, the Asian American principals were the most outspoken.

The Latino principals mostly discussed specific interventions in leadership roles; they indicated that it was important to recognize shortcomings; find people to compensate for them; understand how adults learn; make sense of information, learn how to be an instructional coach; understand and build relationships; understand the difference between questioning and giving advice; focus on continual school improvement; and influence and lead people so they could understand the big picture.

Recommendations

What was striking about the list of interventions the Latino principals suggested was that they centered on building relationships among people.  Such a tendency was clearly aligned with the study conducted by the National Community for Latino Leadership in 2001, which surveyed three thousand Latinos.  That study revealed that while other cultural groups emphasized individualism, Latino cultures focused on collectiveness, belonging, and group benefits.  This may explain why Latino principals dealt with an irate parent or angry teacher by having coffee with them and listening to their issues and concerns, instead of trying to impose their own view of the situation on the parent or teacher, through reasoned argument.

The principals all discussed cultural differences.  Many of them worked in schools where the majority of the students were from their own cultural background.  Although their cultures influenced them as people, their cultural backgrounds did not seem to enter into their decision making.

The Asian American principals, mostly Chinese, mentioned the differences between first and second generation Asian American principals.  First generation principals had high internal pressures to be successful; they wanted to be educational leaders.

Many of the changes that have occurred since NCLB was passed into law were supported by the principals in this study.  All principals saw the value of accountability, but they wanted to be supported instead of punished in their school improvement efforts, even when they had underperforming students.  All principals wanted to have the playing field equalized with more equitable ways of determining growth in their respective schools, especially in student subgroups like special education, Title I, and English language learners.  Principals wanted more autonomy in the hiring and firing of staff and the ability to use resources at their discretion.  All principals wanted to shift from being focused on day to day operations to becoming instructional leaders in their schools.

Conclusion

The above review has indicated that NCLB does not provide significant advantages for students, and it is not a vehicle for delivering social justice.  It focuses on standardized test scores, instead of personal targets, therefore disadvantaging under-achieving and over-achieving students.  Further, it does not allow educators to implement effective, innovative teaching methods that would improve learning experience for students, as it limits the tools and methods funded by the program. Overall, it is evident that there is a need for close collaboration among parents, policymakers, and schools in order to align the objectives of the programs with the interest of all parties.

My recommendation for future research is defining cultural competency for educators and what this means especially for the U.S. Department of Education in their use of cultural competency and as an indicator in teacher evaluation.  Another is tracing the effects of the new educator evaluation system, with its cultural competency indicators, over a period of time, to collect evidence on the academic achievement of students, especially those who are English language learners, impoverished, and/or learning disabled.

Some principals expressed the need to have studies such as this one and to invite principals to participate.  Most research on this topic has been conducted by educational researchers, teachers at universities and colleges, among them educator and researcher Diane Ravitch, who initially was one of NCLB’s strongest proponents, but became one of its fiercest critics.  Others include foundations and organizations, such as the Annenberg Foundation and the Aspen Institute, that report about NCLB, rarely do the voices of principals emerge as such.  This study has given voice to many of the principals at elementary schools in Georgia.  Their view of NCLB’s accountability, principal roles, and practices should be crucial in determining the direction the reform will take.

References

Antes, K. (2002).  School and district leadership: No child left behind policy brief.

Armstrong, J. & Anthes, K. (2001). How data can help. American School Board Journal, 188 (11): 38-41.

Bianchini, J. A., Akerson, V. L., Barton, A. C., Lee, O., & Rodriguez, A. J. (2012). Moving the equity agenda forward: Equity research, practice, and policy in science education (Vol. 5). Springer Science & Business Media.

Blumberg, A. (1986). The effective principal: Perspectives on school leadership. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Braun, H., Chapman, L., & Vezzu, S. (2010). The black-white achievement gap revisited. education Policy Analysis Archives, 18, 21.

Buchen, I. (2004). The future of the American school system. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.

Castallo, R. (2001). Focused leadership: How to improve student achievement. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Clack, J. T. (2013). Leadership Theory and Practice in Sport Management: What Constitutes Ethical Leadership According to Student-Interns? (Doctoral dissertation).

Comer School Development Program (2009). History and ideology

Comer, J. (2004). Leave no child behind: Preparing today’s youth for tomorrow’s world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Donnor, J. K., & Shockley, K. G. (2010). Leaving Us behind: A Political Economic Interpretation of NCLB and the Miseducation of African American Males. Educational Foundations, 24, 43-54

Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

Godard, P. (2014, April). Public Reporting of School Performance: Ethical Issues. In International Forum of Teaching and Studies (Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 47). American Scholars Press, Inc..

Gutman, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gross, S. J., & Shapiro, J. P. (2014). Ethical Responses to Educational Policies1. Handbook of Ethical Educational Leadership, 352.

Levin, H. (2001). Learning from school reform. Paper. Presented at the International Conference on Rejuvenating Schools Through Partnership, May 22-24, 2001, Hong Kong.

Marzano, R. (2005). Being an effective leader: What research tells us. Paper presented to the Massachusetts Elementary School Principals’Association Spring Conference, May 2005, Hyannis, MA.

Owen, J. (2006). The impact of politics in local education: Navigating white water. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education.

Oxley, D. (2004). Small learning communities: Implementing and deepening practice. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Shapiro, J. P., & Gross, S. J. (2013). Ethical educational leadership in turbulent times:(Re) solving moral dilemmas. Routledge.

Slavin, R. & Madden, N. (2006) . Success for all: Research and reform in reading. I Washington, DC: Department of Education.

Thomas, E. E. (2010). “We’re Saying the Same Thing”: How English Teachers Negotiated Solidarity, Identity, And Ethics Through Talk And Interaction (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan).

Zhou, M. (2011). The accidental sociologist in asian american studies. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Asian American Studies Center Press.