Graduate Student Column

Applications of Social Network Analysis in Technology Leadership Research

UCEA — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:38:44 +0000

Applications of Social Network Analysis in Technology Leadership Research

Yinying (Helen) Wang

University of Cincinnati

In response to the dearth of technology leadership scholarship (McLeod & Richardson, 2011) and Daly’s (2010) claim that social network analysis has been underused in education research, this article introduces the applications of social network analysis in the discipline of educational technology leadership. Therefore, this article is structured as follows. I begin by introducing the basic concepts in social network analysis. Next, I differentiate social network analysis from conventional statistical analysis. Finally, I explain how to utilize social network analysis in technology leadership research.

What is Social Network Analysis?

Social network analysis, according to Cross and Parker (2004), is a methodological tool detecting the patterns of social structure, analyzing information flow within the network, and uncovering the formation and evolution of network. Building on the conception that “social life is created primarily and most importantly by relations and the patterns formed by these relations” (p. 11), social network analysis uses mathematical models to measure and analyze relational structure, and its influences on both individual behaviors and systemic performance (Martin & Wellman, 2011). From the perspective of social network analysts, nodes (also called actors or vertices) refer to individuals that formulate the network; and ties (also called edges or links) refer to connections between nodes (Prell, 2011). For example, in a friendship network, nodes represent the friends, and ties represent the friendship. Ties can, either be dichotomous as 0 or 1, indicating whether the friendship exist; or be assigned with different weights, indicating the quality of friendship (e.g., acquaintance or close friends).

Social Network Analysis vs Statistical Analysis

Social network analysis distinguishes itself from conventional statistics on three major fronts. First, social network analysis primarily focuses on the absence or presence of relationship and its impact in a network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994); whereas, statisticians measure and analyze the attributes of individuals, such as age, gender, ethnicity, income, and so forth (Martin & Wellman, 2011; Masser, Alvarez, Prosperi, & Mitsova, 2012). This difference leads to the distinctive approaches in data preparation. Specifically, social network analysts build matrices. In Figure 1, the matrix indicates Adam and Cindy are acquaintances, but Adam and Bill are close friends. In contrast, statisticians organize data by subjects, as seen in Figure 2 which displays a snapshot of data file for statistical analysis.

Figure 1 Matrix of a Friendship Network

	Adam	Bill	Cindy
Adam	0	2	1
Bill	2	0	0
Cindy	1	0	0

Figure 2 Snapshot of Data File for Statistical Analysis

	Age	Gender	Reading score
Adam	10	1	85
Bill	9	1	90
Cindy	10	2	89

The second difference resides in fundamental assumption in two analysis approaches. One of the assumptions for statistical analysis is the dependence of observation: the observation of each subject is assumed to be dependent. Social network analysis, however, assumes nodes are interdependent, which reflects the innate nature of network formation and evolution.

Third, social network analysis is conducted at both individual and network level, whereas statistical analysis detects the relationships among variables. At individual level, social network analysis computes centrality measures for each individual, revealing individuals’ influence or importance in the network. At network level, social network analysis detects network structure and examines how individuals’ attributes affect the network formation and evolution. Take the friendship network depicted in Figure 1 as an example. Adam and Bill, Adam and Cindy are friends, respectively; but no friendship exists between Bill and Cindy. According to Granovetter’s (1973) strength of weak ties theory, as time goes by, Bill and Cindy have an increased probability of forming a friendship (also called weak tie in network terminology) because of the shared attributes between Adam and Bill, and Adam and Cindy (e.g., same neighborhood, same hobby, and so forth). It is worth noting that the analysis of the relationship between node attributes and network structure requires two-mode network data (i.e., network data regarding the absence or presence of relationships and the data on node attributes), rather than one-mode data (i.e. network data).

Applying Social Network Analysis in Technology Leadership Scholarship

In this section, I explore the applications of social network analysis in educational technology leadership scholarship in three domains: organizational communication, social capital, and mixed methods research.

Organizational Communication

With the extensive use of information and communication technology in educational leadership, social network analysis can be used to examine the similarities and differences between online relationship and offline relationship. Employing social network analysis, Penuel et al. (2010) revealed the notable variances between formal and informal communication in schools’ organizational change. In the same vein, offline communication might exhibit disparities from the online communication through social network analysis. Taking this idea a step further, researchers can also use social network analysis to address the questions about how online communication within an organization affects offline communication, and vice versa. No existing literature on technology leadership has addressed such questions, but some similar studies have been conducted in other areas. An example is a study using employees’ communication on social media to infer internal organizational structure in six hi-tech companies (Fire, Puzis & Elovici, 2013).

Social Capital and Social Media

Flashback to late 1990s, Lin (1999), a prominent scholar who developed network theory of social capital, predicted the promising role of Internet in creating social capital. According to Lin (1999), social capital is “resources embedded in social structure which are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions” (p. 35). In the digital age, social media stands itself out with its social features such as information sharing, collaboration, and creation, when compared to traditional online media which are simply the outlets of gathered information (Goodfellow & Maino, 2010).

Within in the context of technology leadership scholarship, although Wang (2013) proposed the possibility of using schools’ social media to create social capital, more research are needed to unravel the mechanism of social capital generation process via institutional use of social media. In response to the increasing need of conducting network analysis on social media data, Social Media Research Foundation developed NodeXL (Smith et al, 2010), a free and open-source software for social media data collection and network analysis. Along with other network analysis software programs, including UCINET and Pajek, scholars are well-equipped with research tools to explore the broad implications of social media on social capital in education.

Mixed Methods Research

Social network analysis, as argued by Prell (2011), is a valuable asset in mixed methods research. The variables regarding structural relations generated from social network analysis can be used as independent or dependent variables in statistical analysis. An example is an investigation of the relationships between school principals’ structural position in school social networks, transformational leadership, and schools’ innovative climate conducted by Moolenaar, Daly and Sleegers (2010). In their study, a social network survey was used to collect network data for the social network analysis of principals’ structural position in their schools’ social networks; the data on transformational leadership and innovation climate were collected, respectively, through the instruments established in prior literature. Principals’ centrality measures, computed from social network analysis, were then used as the variables for the subsequent correlation analyses. The findings of Moolenaar et al.’s (2010) study were very illuminating: the more central and connected a principal in the school social network with teachers, the more teachers had positive perception on school’s climate and were willing to take risks in school’s innovation.

In addition to the mixed methods research design of network analysis and quantitative method, researchers also used qualitative method to collect network data for further social network analysis. For example, to study the influential players in state reading policy development, Song and Miskel (2005) first used qualitative data collected from interviews and archives as the source to construct state reading policymaking networks for social network analysis. Through the network metrics of centrality and prestige computed from social network analysis, Song and Miskel (2005) found that government agencies (i.e., offices of governor, education committees in state legislatures, state departments of education, and state boards of education) exerted stronger influences on state reading policy than non-government agencies (i.e., teacher organizations, education associations, higher education institutions, citizens groups, business groups, foundations, think tanks, and the media).

To date, the above introduced mixed methods research design with social network analysis has not been used in technology leadership research. This article, hopefully, provides a fresh eye to approach technology leadership scholarship with a network perspective.

Conclusion

As a final note, this article serves as weak tie between technology leadership scholarship and social network analysis. The proposed applications of social network analysis in technology leadership in this article, aim to initiate the conversation on technology leadership research. The scope of applying social network analysis in technology leadership scholarship goes far beyond the above three proposed domains. I sincerely invite aspiring researchers in all related areas to join this conversation.

References

Cross, R. L. & Parker, A. (2004). The Hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Daly, A. J. (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Fire, M., Puzis, R., & Elovici, Y. (2013). Organization miming using online social networks. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3741

Goodfellow, G. W., & Maino, D. M. (2010). ASCOTech: World Wide Web as easy as 1.0, 2.0, 3.0. Optometric Education, 35(2), 62-63.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22, 28-51.

Marin, A., & Wellman, B. (2011). Social network analysis: An introduction. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 11-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Masser, A., Alvarez, A. E., Prosperi, D. C., & Mitsova, D. (2012). Comparing metropolitan governance in Germany and the USA: A social network analysis. Proceedings from REAL CORP 2012 Tagungsband. Retrieved from http://www.corp.at/archive/CORP2012_82.pdf

McLeod, S. & Richardson, J. W. (2011). The dearth of technology-related articles in educational leadership scholarship. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 216-240.

Moolenaar, N., Daly, A., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). Occupying the principal position: Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’ innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 623-670.

Penuel, W. R., Riel, M., Joshi, A., Pearlman, L., Kim, C. M., & Frank, K. A. (2010). The alignment of the informal and formal organizational supports for reform: Implications for improving teaching in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 57-95.

Prell, C. (2011). Social network analysis: History, theory and methodology. London, England: Sage Publications Ltd.

Smith, M., Milic-Frayling, N., Shneiderman, B., Mendes Rodrigues, E., Leskovec, J., & Dunne, C., (2010). NodeXL: A free and open network overview, discovery and exploration add-in for Excel 2007/2010. Retrieved from http://nodexl.codeplex.com/

Song, M., & Miskel, C. G. (2005). Who are the influentials? A cross-state social network analysis of the reading policy domain. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 7-48.

Wang, Y. (2013, March). Social media in schools: A treasure trove or hot potato? Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 16(1), 83 - 91.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994) Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

A Marketplace of Leadership Preparation Programs: Alternative Pathways Created by Non-Profit Providers

UCEA — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:32:39 +0000

A Marketplace of Leadership Preparation Programs: Alternative Pathways Created by Non-Profit Providers

J. Ulmer and B. Larkin

PhD students

University of Florida

University-based leadership preparation programs currently find themselves competing against alternative providers within a robust marketplace (Roach, Smith, & Boutin, 2011). Future educational leaders now choose among pathways that extend across multiple sectors. Colleges and universities, for-profit institutions, state and local educational agencies, philanthropic foundations, and non-profit organizations each offer an array of preparation options. Within this developing landscape, several non-profit organizations have begun to provide a set of high-profile, alternative routes to the principalship and superintendency. The expansions of alternative leadership preparation programs reflect not only existing tensions within public education, but also highlight the competitive marketplace of leadership preparation options. Just as school choice has created a set of charter, private, and virtual systems that function as alternatives to traditional models of public schooling, alternative preparation programs may be creating parallel products within the domain of leadership preparation. This phenomenon raises questions regarding whether university-based and alternative-route leadership programs are becoming more discrete from one another in content, participants, philosophy, and purpose. These potential differences represent opportunities to examine characteristics of several alternative preparation models within the field of educational leadership.

Contemporary Challenges and Challengers

“Today, principals and superintendents have the job not only of managing our schools, but also of leading them through an era of profound social change that has required fundamental rethinking of what schools do and how they do it. This is an assignment that few sitting school administrators have been prepared to undertake” (Levine, 2005, p. 5). As the principalship increases in complexity and importance, alternative route pathways continue to materialize outside the traditional realm of colleges and universities. These alternative route pathways may reflect new realities of the principalship, limitations of traditional preparation, or rapidly shifting educational terrain marked by the presence of “jurisdictional challenger[s]” that constitute an “‘alternative governing coalition’ to the traditional educational structure” (Mehta & Teles, 2011, p. 198). As such, entrepreneurial organizations attempt to transform an entire educational system through disruptive innovation (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008).

In an overview of alternative leadership preparation programs, Teitel (2006) identifies three prominent non-profit leadership programs operating at the national level. These organizations, along with one other, serve as the organizations of interest within this column: New Leaders (formerly New Leaders for New Schools, or NLNS); Building Excellent Schools (BES); and the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP). Achievement First represents the fourth non-profit organization of interest; after previously receiving leadership preparation services from KIPP, Achievement First initiated an independently-operated alternative pathway in 2011 (Robelen, 2006; Achievement First, 2012).

Most of these organizations have created extensive leadership pipelines and consulting services, reflecting their entrepreneurial nature and interest in leadership development. Though these organizations offer a variety of leadership preparation options, this discussion centers upon those that lead directly to principal certification or school-level leadership positions. Accordingly the focus rests upon the following programs: Fisher Fellows Program (KIPP); Aspiring Principals Program (New Leaders); Residency Program for School Leadership (Achievement First); and Fellowship (Building Excellent Schools).

Alternative Pathways to Educational Leadership

New Leaders. New Leaders has attracted the most media and scholarly attention among the sample organizations (Currie, 2007; Gewertz, 2008; Harris, 2007; Johnston, Walker, & Levine, 2010; McLester, 2011). Created by social entrepreneurs in 2000, New Leaders since has trained more than 800 principals in a model that emphasizes the “multiplier effect” that transformational leaders have upon student achievement (New Leaders, 2012).

New Leaders operates the Aspiring Principals Program, which is a year-long, paid residency that combines practice with academic theory. A rigorous selection process attracts numerous applicants; 2,600 candidates applied for the initial 150 openings (Teitel, 2006). Although entry into the program is highly competitive, the technical requirements of entry vary. The years of minimum teaching experience ranges from 2-5 years across sites, and requirements vary regarding previous attainment of a master’s degree or professional teaching certificate. Other characteristics and experiences of applications are more specific: evidence of personal leadership; learning and teaching; vision, mission, and values; systems and operations; school culture; and human capital management (New Leaders, 2012). These selection criteria emerged after a RAND Corporation study of New Leaders determined that principals can be attributed with 25 percent of the academic achievement within a school (New Leaders, 2009).

KIPP. Since its founding by two Teach For America alumni in 1994, KIPP has expanded to 125 schools in 20 states and the District of Columbia. Feinberg, a KIPP founder, prioritizes strong leadership in the establishment of effective schools: “if we truly do a great job recruiting and selecting a leader for a school, then technically we’re done. The school will be successful” (Newstead, 2008). Accordingly, KIPP has developed a comprehensive leadership development pipeline that recruits from without and sustains from within to maintain its continual rate of expansion (Samuels, 2009). The Fisher Fellowship, for example, is a paid, year-long fellowship; as the KIPP chief academic officer estimated in 2008, the Fisher Fellowship program receives more than 500 applications a year for between eight and 15 openings, and more than 70 percent of fellows are existing KIPP employees (Bennett, 2012).

The organization’s financial model also involves consulting with external organizations through leadership development programs. Although the majority of KIPP’s leadership programs are designed for current or future KIPP personnel, administrators from other (non-KIPP) charter schools and public schools may participate in the eight-month-long School Leadership Design Fellowship. Achievement First was one such participating organization (Robelen, 2012).

Achievement First. This college preparatory charter school network currently operates in 22 schools across two states and four cities. Founded in 2003, the organization articulates a specific theory of change, hoping that “by creating the equivalent of an urban public school ‘district,’ Achievement First can serve as proof that closing the achievement gap is possible at the district scale and inspire broader reform” (2012). The Achievement First Residency Program for School Leadership began in 2011 with five fellows and continues to expand; the residency program reflects ongoing partnerships between Achievement First and the larger public school district (Achievement First, 2012; Bailey, 2011). In the residency year, participants spend half of the year in an Achievement First school and the other half in a regular public school in the district. In addition, training includes pre- and post-residency summer leadership development and academic year seminars. The commitment is three years, and entails one year of preparation and follow-up professional development and coaching once placed in a school. The Peter and Carmen Lucia Buck Foundation awarded Achievement First $575,000 to support the development of transformational school leaders (Bailey, 2011). The grant budget states that the average cost of training each fellow ranges from $66,840 to $79,574 per resident per year for three years; when the residents’ district-based salaries are included, the cost per resident rises to $156,840 to $185,055 per year for three years (Bailey, 2011).

Building Excellent Schools. This organization bills itself as “the solution” to failing urban schools, stating that “Building Excellent Schools (BES) is a trailblazing nonprofit that raises the quality of urban charter schools by supporting entrepreneurial individuals to design, found, lead, and sustain schools in underserved communities” (BES, 2012). Started in 2001, BES now operates 56 schools in 20 cities around the country. Like KIPP and Achievement First, BES expresses concern with the achievement gap, children in underserved communities, and college readiness.

The BES fellowship differs somewhat in purpose and design from the previous leadership pathways. The intent of the Fellowship is to prepare school leaders not only to serve as administrators, but to undertake all necessary steps to successfully establish and open a charter school, including the submission of a charter application to the relevant district or state authorizer (BES, 2012). The initial training period for Fellows lasts 90 days (and includes a month-long residency); the remainder of the first year involves obtaining charter approval. The second year of the Fellowship represents a planning year in which the Fellow secures faculty, staff, students, and facilities; the Fellow opens his or her charter school opens in the third year of the commitment.

Discussion

Many elements of the aforementioned alternative leadership programs may appeal to aspiring school leaders, including cost, placement, ongoing support, and a clear sense of mission. In an uncertain economy, opportunities to participate in a paid residency or fellowship with a high likelihood of job placement may be enticing for many candidates when compared to the rising costs of tuition in higher education and uncertainty of attaining a school leadership position upon completion. Many universities frontload educational leadership programs with preparation inputs (such as coursework and internships); upon matriculation many graduates enter the realm of school leadership with acquired knowledge and experiences but ultimately go forth alone. In contrast, organizational programming among these alternative leadership organizations can extend for multiple years beyond the initial preparation period, thereby providing graduates with ongoing, built-in professional development and support networks.

In addition, school leaders may also be attracted to the ideological mission and purpose of organizations such as Achievement First, BES, KIPP, and New Leaders. Common organizational themes include the desire to transform education by selecting, preparing, and supporting dynamic change leaders. These alternative pathways appear to place great emphasis upon selectivity, prestige, placement in underserved communities, and promoting K-12 students’ college readiness and attendance. Closing the achievement gap represents a regular motif, and these organizations state that they intend to accomplish this by attracting top leadership talent and preparing those leaders to embark upon a mission to transform schools. This focus on transformation echoes calls from organization theorist Peter Senge, who recommends that “the field of educational leadership must be reconstructed so that the transformation of schools becomes its central focus” (2000, p. 317).

Though alternative models are expanding, university faculty will continue to prepare the majority of school leaders (Teitel, 2006). Alternative preparation models, therefore, provide opportunities to reexamine programmatic goals, recruitment, admissions, pedagogical design, licensure, financial support, effectiveness, and support beyond program completion. Such conversations reflect the positionality of public education as a whole within the midst of larger policy debates concerning choice and the influence of external organizations (English, 2005; Ravitch, 2010). The field of educational administration is no exception.

References

Achievement First. (2012). Residency program for school leadership. Retrieved from http://www.achievementfirst.org/our-approach/residency-program-for-school-leadership/

Anderson, C., and Louh, R. (2005). Leadership development for urban schools. Principal, 84(5), 26-29.

Bailey, M. (2011, November 21). Aspiring city principals dispatched to Amistad. New Haven Independent. Retrieved from http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/city_teachers_study_at_amistad/

Baker, B. D., Libby, K., and Wiley, K. (2012). Spending by the major charter management organizations: Comparing charter school and local public district financial resources in New York, Ohio, and Texas. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/spending-major-charter.

Bennett, J. (2008). Brand-name charters: The franchise model applied to schools. Education Next, Summer 2008, 28-34. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/brandname-charters/

Building Excellent Schools. (2012). Homepage. Retrieved from http://bes.squarespace.com/

Building Excellent Schools. (2011). Building Excellent Schools 2009-2010 annual report card. Retrieved http://buildingexcellentschools.org/wp-content/uploads/BES_School_List.pdf

Cheney, G. R., Davis, J., Garrett, K., and Holleran, J. (2010). A new approach to principal preparation: Innovative programs share their practices and lessons learned. Fort Worth, TX: Rainwater Charitable Foundation. Retrieved from www.anewapproach.org

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., and Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Currie, T. (2007). New leaders for troubled schools. Education Next, 7(1), 29-34.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: Developing successful principals (Review of research). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

English, F. W. (2005). A metacursive perspective on the landscape of educational leadership in the 21^st century. In F. W. English (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice (ix-xvi). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Ferrell, C., Wohlstetter, P., and Smith, J. (2012). Charter management organizations: An emerging approach to scaling up what works. Education Policy, 26(4), 499-532.

Fullan, M. (2009). Leadership development: The larger context. Educational Leadership, 67(2), 45-49.

Gerwetz, C. (2008). New-Leaders group offers initial insights into effective practice. Education Week, 27(28).

Harris, D. (2000). Nonprofit group aims to groom new breed of leaders. Education Week, 20(3).

Hess, F. M., & Kelley, A. P. (2005). An innovative look, a recalcitrant reality: The politics of principal preparation reform. Educational Policy, 19(155).

Johnston, M., Walker, R. K., and Levine, A. (2010). Fit for the principalship: Identifying, training, and clearing the path for potential school leaders. Principal, May 2010, 10-15..

King, A. (2012). NCLB is ten years old, but measuring educational effectiveness is still no easy task. Harvard Law and Policy Review. Retrieved from http://hlpronline.com/2012/01/nclb-is-ten-years-old-but-measuring-educational-effectiveness-is-still-no-easy-task/

Knowledge is Power Program. (2012). About. Retrieved from http://kipp.org/about-kipp

Lake, R., Dusseault, B., Bowen, M., Demeritt, A., and Hill, P. (2010). The national study of charter management organizations (CMO) effectiveness. Center for Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington Bothell. Retrieved from http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/education/cmo_interimrpt.pdf

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. The Education Schools Project. Retrieved from http://www.edschools.org/reports_leaders.htm

Maxwell, L. A. and Gerwetz, C. (2008). Human capital key worry for reformers. Education Week, 28(14).

McLester, S. (2011). Turnaround principals. District Administration, May 2011, 40-46.

Mehta, J. and Teles, S. (2011). Jurisdictional politics: A new federal role in education. In Carrots, sticks, and the bully pulpit, ed. Frederick M. Hess and Andrew P. Kelly, 197-215. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2011). Number of public charter school students in U.S. surpasses two million. Retrieved from http://www.publiccharters.org/PressReleasePublic/?id=643

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Number of public school districts and public and private elementary and secondary schools: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2009-10. Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_091.asp

New Leaders for New Schools. (2009). Principal effectiveness: A new principalship to drive student achievement, teacher effectiveness, and school turnarounds. Retrieved from http://www.newleaders.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/princpal_effectiveness_executive_summary_nlns.pdf

New Leaders for New Schools. (2012). About. Retrieved from http://www.newleaders.org/about/

NewSchool Venture Fund. (2008). Principal development: Selection, support, and evaluation. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.newschools.org/files/PrincipalDevelopment.pdf

Newstead, B., Saxton, A., and Colby, S.J. (2008). Going for the gold: Secrets of successful schools. Education Next, 8(Spring), 38-45.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.

Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Roach, V., Smith, L. W., & Boutin, J. (2011). School leadership policy trends and developments: Policy expediency or policy excellence? Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 71-113.

Robelen, E. W. (2006). KIPP schools shift strategy for scaling up. Education Week, 25(31), 1-19.

Samuels, C. A. (2012). Charter school starts to grow its own leaders: But the demand may still outpace supply. Education Week, 31(30), 9.

Senge, P. M., et al. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Teitel, L. (2006). Mapping the terrain of ‘alternative’ leadership education: Lessons for universities. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7), 500-507.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Charter schools program (CSP) grants for replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools. Retrieved from http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-12436.pdf

Usdan, M. D. (2009). Bridging establishments: Opportunities and caveats. School Administrator, 66(3), 42-43.

Effect of NCLB on Teacher Certification Programs

UCEA — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:01:54 +0000

The 2012 UCEA Graduate Student Summit presented an opportunity for early-career scholars from across the country and around the world to share their work. Summit sessions allowed authors to present on a wide variety of works at various stages of writing, and to elicit feedback from their peers. At the conclusion of the 2012 Graduate Student Summit, attendees chose five papers to be presented at the UCEA Annual Convention during the 'Highlights from the Graduate Student Summit' session. Patricia Baumer, doctoral student at Southern Methodist University, was one of five authors chosen by her peers to present during this session. An abbreviated version of the paper she presented is available here. Stay tuned to the Graduate Student Column for more works from 2012’s 'Highlights' session.

Effect of NCLB on Teacher Certification Programs

Patricia Baumer

Southern Methodist University

Background. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was legislative reform that began reshaping American education in 2002 (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). The national policy provided a definition for a “highly qualified teacher” and mandated that public schools retain such teachers. Part of that definition stipulated that a “teacher of quality” is one certified or licensed through their state of employment (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Traditional and alternative preparation programs are the responsible agencies in each state for creating these teachers of quality (Feistritzer, 2005). Traditional preparation refers to established collegiate programs conferring degrees in education prior to employment. Alternative preparation refers to state-approved programs at institutes of higher education, school district offices, or outside agencies created to help participants earn certification credentials with a shortened time frame, minimized coursework, or both, usually concurrent with employment (Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2005). Research should focus on determining what characteristics of preparation programs create high quality teachers as defined by NCLB. This information affects decisions made by institutions of higher education and state education agencies that accredit preparation programs.

Research Purpose: This study was seen as the introduction to a series of research designed to evaluate the effectiveness of certification programs as a result of NCLB mandates and ensuing state needs. Towards that step, this study analyzes demographic shifts to see which type of program (traditional or alternative) have teachers relied on for their initial preparation. The research question has two parts: [1] has NCLB had an effect on certification trends of these programs? [2] Has there been a statistically significant change in demographics of the various types of programming?

Sample: State level demographic information of traditional and alternative certification program participants from seven (New Jersey, Minnesota, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, and California) of the top certifying states for 2003 (Title II, 2003)

Research Design: Abbreviated interrupted time series with a statistical regression analysis

Data Collection: The Title II Higher Education Act website was a main source for state-reported information. It provided standard metrics for reporting teacher certification information from all states. Data collection focused on gathering information about certification trends from eight states identified in a 2003 U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Evaluation report as the top teacher certifying states of that year (Title II, 2003). The common variable for analysis was the number of initially certified in-state teachers from academic years 1999-2000 through 2010-2011. This data was not separated by preparation route, but could provide insight on the impact of NCLB on overall state certification trends and allow for state-by-state comparison. The state of New York did not report its data similarly to the others, so it was excluded from this study.

Additional searches of state education websites were conducted to find more detailed programming data. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) website provided two particular reports most compatible with the needs of this study: “Production and retention of beginning teachers from 1999 to 2003: A comparison of preparation routes” (Herbert, 2004) and “Certified teacher demographics by preparation route 2006-2010” (Ramsay, 2011). The data from both tracked the number of teachers receiving initial certification categorized by the three types of teacher education programs that prepared them: undergraduate (traditional), post-baccalaureate, or alternative. For the purpose of this study, the post-baccalaureate route remained its own category. These programs were often hybrids of traditional and alternative routes and could fit under either parameter. Other state websites uncovered information useful for future research, but were not included within this study. The information could not be used for several reasons: data for the entire time span was unavailable, data was not detailed or specific regarding program types, or the data was not pertinent for the purpose of this study.

Analysis: Analysis was conducted in two steps. The first step required creating a visual representation of the abbreviated interrupted time-series data with regression lines for pre-NCLB and post-NCLB years. The cutoff criterion for creating these comparison groups was year 2003, allowing for delayed implementation. Following graphical analysis, a regression analysis was conducted to corroborate or refute statistically the visual findings. A p-value of <.05 was the criterion for determining statistical significance. Analyses that demonstrated both visual and statistical significance are reported.

Findings. Findings were more significant when looking at disaggregated data as opposed to the aggregated statistics presented in the Title II Higher Education Act report. At the aggregated state level, only California and Florida showed statistically significant though three other states demonstrated visual shifts. Examining results of the disaggregated Texas data provided more insight to the estimated impact of NCLB on certification trends. Post-baccalaureate programs showed the most statistically significant change as a result of NCLB, which appeared to have a negative impact on certification trends of these programs. There was an overall drop of teachers choosing to be certified through this route, especially amongst females and minorities. The findings surrounding alternative certification programs were unexpected. Though there was a visual increase in the number of teachers becoming certified through this route, the statistical analysis suggested this was not due to the implementation of NCLB. The certification trend was already on its change trajectory, perhaps resulting from previous education reform legislation.

Conclusion. The main conclusion from the results of this study is that prior to making decisions regarding preparation programming, states and institutes of higher education should prioritize analysis of disaggregated data versus aggregated data. Further state data breakdown could be between private and public IHEs to see if the impact pattern of NCLB described in this study is experienced similarly across both types. More studies need to be conducted to examine certification trends by preparation route across subject areas and specialized certifications, such as special education or leadership. Examination of pass-rate trends compared to participants receiving initial certification would provide a better understanding of the effectiveness of certification programs, as would hiring trends of those receiving certification. These conclusions hold true regardless of program type, traditional or alternative, especially when attempting to determine the impact of national policies. The progress of research in this field would ideally impact the outlook of all teacher preparation programs, regardless of route or location.

References

Feistritzer, C.E. (2005). State policy trends for alternative routes to teacher certification: A moving target. Prepared for the Conference on Alternative Certification: A Forum for Highlighting Rigorous Research. Retrieved from http://www.teach-now.org/CEFState%20Overview%20FINAL4.pdf

Herbert, K. (2004). Production and retention of beginning teachers from 1999 to 2003: Acomparison of preparation routes. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5568

Ramsay, M.C. (2011). Certified teacher demographics by preparation route 2006-2010. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5033

Rosenberg, M., & Sindelar, P. (2005). The proliferation of alternative routes to certification in special education: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 39(2), 117-127.

Title II, HEA Teacher Quality. (2003). Findings from the 2002 state reports [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://title2.ed.gov/html2003/2003overview.pdf

U.S. Department of Education (2002). Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.pdf

U.S. Department of Education (2004). No Child Left Behind: A toolkit for teachers. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/nclb-teachers-toolkit.pdf

Virtual Charter Schools: Realities and Unknowns

UCEA — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:23:31 +0000

The 2012 UCEA Graduate Student Summit presented an opportunity for young scholars from across the country and around the world to share their work. Summit sessions allowed authors to present on a wide variety of works at various stages of writing, and to elicit feedback from their peers. At the conclusion of the 2012 Graduate Student Summit, attendees chose five papers to be presented at the UCEA Annual Convention during the 'Highlights from the Graduate Student Summit' session. Daniela Torre, doctoral student at Vanderbilt, was one of five authors chosen by her peers to present during this session. Daniela’s column entry is based upon her Summit presentation and represents an abbreviated version of a larger paper which is presently under peer review for publication. Stay tuned to the Graduate Student Column for more works from 2012’s 'Highlights' session.

Virtual Charter Schools: Realities and Unknowns

Daniela Torre

Vanderbilt University

Background/Context:

Virtual charter schools have emerged over the last decade as an increasingly popular alternative to traditional public schooling. They present a host of new policy problems that need to be scrutinized in order to ensure that students enrolled in these public schools are receiving an adequate, if not excellent, education. As the number of students enrolled in virtual charter schools continues to increase, researchers and policy makers must begin to engage with questions of equity, quality, and sustainability methodically to ensure that children are benefiting in these new educational settings.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study:

The purpose of this review is to synthesize the inchoate body of literature that presently exists regarding the topic to provide a backing for future policy making. In this article I first describe the landscape in which virtual charter schools have emerged, then I describe how virtual charter schools have grown and how they operate, and finally I discuss the sparse findings on effectiveness and how research can inform the continued development of these schools.

Research Design, Data Collection, and Analysis:

The conclusions drawn in this narrative review are based on a broad examination of the extant literature concerning virtual schooling in both K-12 and higher education settings, virtual charter schools in particular, and the movement towards privatization within the education sector. To conduct this review I began by using Google Scholar to search for terms such as “virtual charter schools”, “online schools”, “blended learning”, “cyber charters”, and so forth. The results of my initial search included policy reports created by state education agencies, advocacy pieces, books and book chapters, and both published and not published empirical pieces. I expanded my search by including cited publications and ended up with a collection of pieces that covered a broad swath of the current relevant literature concerning K-12 online virtual charter schools and virtual schools generally.

In the second step of the research process I created a framework for understanding the concepts and themes emerging from the literature. As I read each piece I added and deleted components from my framework, and used evidence to deepen my understanding of each component of the framework. Finally, I analyzed evidence relating to each component to draw conclusions about the virtual charter school landscape.

Findings:

I found that virtual charter schools are only one of myriad forms of online learning. One can think of online learning as a matrix of factors that include: the purpose of online instruction, (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010) who delivers instruction, where instruction takes place, how instruction is delivered (Huerta, d’ Entremont, & González, 2006), when instruction takes place, the type of curriculum used, how students and schools are held accountable and who authorizes or manages teaching and learning (Hassel & Terrell, 2004).

There has been rapid growth in virtual schooling across the nation. The most recent numbers indicate that 40 states have authorized virtual schools in some capacity (Glass, 2009) and, about 250,000 students are enrolled in full time virtual schools.

The scant research describing the students served by virtual charter schools suggests that these schools enroll more gifted students, fewer minorities, and a larger proportion of previously homeschooled students than both brick and mortar charter and public schools (Guarino, et al., 2005; Meyn-Rogeness, 2010 ).One study indicated that minorities tended to be underrepresented within virtual charter schools (Guarino, Zimmer, Krop, & Chau, 2005) and low income, rural, and minority students on the wrong side of the “digital divide” may be at a disadvantage. States and individual virtual schools have confronted problems related to the digital divide by providing students with computers, vouchers to pay for access, and supplies (Tucker, 2007).

The rationale for states or districts to authorize virtual charter schools, or for parents to enroll their children in these schools mirrors the rational proffered by charter school and homeschooling advocates in general: virtual charter schools offer a means of “expanding educational access, providing high quality learning opportunities, improving student outcomes and skills, and allowing for educational choice” (Clark & Berge, 2005).

One of the most contentious points in the literature on virtual charter schools is how much these schools cost and how they should be funded. It might seem obvious that virtual charter schools would cost less to operate then brick and mortar schools due to the simple fact that they do not need to provide facilitates or transportation. However, these particular cost reductions may be offset by other costs particular to virtual schools such as “computer and Internet provision…technology support, and per pupil licenses for any commercial products” (Hassel & Terrell, 2004).

An important facet of virtual schools is their relationship with for-profit companies. In 2011 75% of students enrolled in full time online schools attend schools managed by for-profit companies (Glass & Welner, 2011) compared to 42% of students enrolled in brick and mortar charter schools nationwide (Miron, Urschel, Yat Aguilar, & Dailey, 2011).

Despite a lack of rigorous empirical work analyzing the outcomes of students enrolled in full time virtual schools, findings from a meta-analysis conducted by Means et al. find blended learning and asynchronous models show more positive results than full time models, although results vary across studies.

Conclusions/Recommendations: Description

The rapid growth in the number of virtual charter schools thorough the country and the number of students enrolled in these schools make empirical research imperative. The article illuminates the current virtual charter school landscape and provides a foundation for much needed additional research, which includes research on teaching and learning in a virtual context, issues of equity and access, and academic and socio-emotional outcomes.

Works Cited

Glass, G. (2009). The Realities of K-12 Virtual Education. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/realities-K-12-virtual-education

Glass, G. V & Welner, K.G. (2011). Online K-12 Schooling in the U.S.: Uncertain Private Ventures in Need of Public Regulation. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/online-k-12-schooling.

Guarino, C., Zimmer, R., Krop, C., Chau, D. (2005). Nonclassroom-based charter schools in California and the impact of SB 740 (Vol. 112). RAND Corp.

Hassel, B. C., & Terrell, M. G. (2004). How can virtual schools be a vibrant part of meeting the choice provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. Virtual School Report.

Huerta, L. A., d’ Entremont, C., & González, M. (2006). Cyber Charter Schools: Can Accountability Keep Pace with Innovation? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(1), 23-30.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.

Miron, G., Urschel, J.L., Yat Aguilar, M.A, & Dailey, B. (2011). Profiles of for-profit and nonprofit

Tucker, B. (2007). Laboratories of reform: Virtual high schools and innovation in public education. Washington, DC: Education Sector.

Implementing the Turnaround Model: Leaders’ Voices from One Urban Charter School

UCEA — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:33:42 +0000

The 2012 UCEA Graduate Student Summit presented an opportunity for early-career scholars from across the country and around the world to share their work. Summit sessions allowed authors to present on a wide variety of works at various stages of writing, and to elicit feedback from their peers. At the conclusion of the 2012 Graduate Student Summit, attendees chose five papers to be presented at the UCEA Annual Convention during the 'Highlights from the Graduate Student Summit' session. Abigail Felber-Smith, doctoral student at The University of Minnesota, was one of five authors chosen by her peers to present during this session. An abbreviated version of the paper she presented is available here. Stay tuned to the Graduate Student Column for more works from 2012’s 'Highlights' session.

Implementing the Turnaround Model: Leaders’ Voices from One Urban Charter School

Abigail Felber-Smith[1]

University of Minnesota

If there is anything close to a law in the turnaround literature, it is that context is critical both in relation to the causes of organizational decline and failure and in terms of the role it plays in turning around declining enterprises. (Murphy, 2009, p. 819)

Background/Context: Two strategies are embedded in current state and federal education policies. The first is to use both pressure and support to create rapid performance turnarounds in traditional public schools (TPSs) with low achievement, while a second is to increase the number of charter schools as a strategy for rapid system improvement. This paper focuses on a neglected intersection between these two policy streams: turnaround initiatives in existing, but underperforming, charter schools. As the number of U.S. charter schools is steadily increasing (e.g., Lake, 2009), research reports mixed results on their effectiveness (e.g., CREDO, 2009; Gleason et al., 2010). Stuit (2010) reported that while the “autonomy-accountability dynamic” unique to charter contexts would seemingly facilitate turnaround efforts in underperforming charter schools, charter schools were no more likely to turnaround than underperforming TPSs.

Focus of Study: Given that charter schools operate in a context that is in many ways unique to the traditional public school context and that little (if any) research depicts turnaround efforts in existing charter schools, this study explores Laker Charter School[i] (LCS) School’s efforts to launch a school turnaround. LCS entered the 2010-11 school year at AYP stage Corrective Action 3.2 (District Level Improvement Plan, 2010-11) and their administrative team and school board made the decision to adopt the turnaround[ii] model as part of their school turnaround plan. The following questions guided this analysis:

How was the decision made to adopt the turnaround model for structuring the school turnaround plan for LCS for the 2010-11 school year?
From the perspective of formal leaders within the school, what factors (if any) could impede efforts to implement their 2010-11 school turnaround plan?

Research Design: Here, I present the case of LCS, one of five schools in Minnesota involved in a larger project tracking leadership development. The project, a collaborative effort between the schools and several community partners, is a five-year longitudinal study funded by a federal grant. The methodology employed here is congruent with Yin’s (2003) explanation that the case study method makes sense when researchers have “little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life contexts” (p. 1). The decision to focus on a single case allows for a more in-depth exploration of the turnaround efforts from the perspective of school leaders

Data Collection and Analysis: Primary data sources include interviews, documents, and related websites. Data was collected over the period of 20 months, beginning in October 2010. I, along with co-investigators on the larger project, conducted 2 to 3 interviews with each of the four administrators[iii] of LCS. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. From January-June 2012, I met monthly with a school coach that worked closely with administrators in designing and implementing ongoing improvement plans. Extensive notes were taken during all meetings. In addition, I interviewed a director and staff person from the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) and the director of a local non-profit focused on school improvement to gain a broader contextual understanding of the current policy environment in which LCS is situated. Documents such as LCS’s school improvement plan and SIG application, press releases, and newspaper articles along with state and federal governmental websites dedicated to school improvement provided additional contextual information. Such data also functioned to corroborate information shared in the interviews. Data collection and analysis proceeded iteratively (Merriam, 1998, p. 151); analysis occurred simultaneously with data collection, and data sources were added as they became pertinent. Member-checking both with respondents and project colleagues occurred periodically and will continue while the final paper is prepared.

Preliminary Findings and Implications: Given the exploratory nature of this case study, preliminary findings and implications are presented more as lessons learned and avenues for additional research rather than conclusions or guidelines for future policymaking.

How was the decision made to adopt the turnaround model for structuring the school improvement plan for LCS for the 2010-11 school year?

Upon learning of their eligibility for the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program, LCS schools leaders had just a few months to get their application completed and submitted to the State Department of Education (SDE). School leaders shared that their decision to employ the turnaround model as the foundation for their turnaround plan was based in advice from external consultants and officials at SDE, while SDE officials deny any role in this decision by LCS administrators. The turnaround literature suggests that the short timeline provided by current policies for planning might decrease the likelihood of schools achieving intended outcomes (Kutash et al., 2010). At least the preliminary findings here suggest that this might be true for LCS. Evidence suggests that school leaders did not have sufficient time to clarify expectations before developing their turnaround plans. More research on an adequate timeline for planning school turnaround is needed. How much time is needed to assess school context and needs and develop a plan? How does current policy support or impede the process of school improvement planning? In addition, further research is needed to determine how state education agencies and charter schools can develop systems of communication that build trust and collaboration and thus, result in adequate supports provided to schools embarking on school turnaround.

From the perspective of formal leaders within the school, what factors (if any) could impede efforts to implement their 2010-11 school turnaround plan?

LCS administrators identified a variety of factors as obstacles to meeting their turnaround goals. Here, I will summarize those factors that, at least the preliminary findings suggest, might impact charter school organizations differently than traditional public schools. Much of the turnaround literature highlights the importance of securing sufficient resources for successful implementation (Kutash et al., 2010; Murphy, 2009). In this state, charter schools are not allowed to levy taxes and are therefore, much more dependent upon state and federal revenue sources than TPS districts. In addition, whereas larger districts have more flexibility within their budget, charter schools are often their own district. For example, the yearly budget of LCS for fiscal year 2010 was roughly $4 million dollars, while the TPS district in which it is situated had $598 million in revenues (Revenue Comparison…2009-10). Bill Smith, local charter school advocate involved in the larger project from which this study emerges, corroborated that securing sufficient resources can pose a great challenge in small charter schools (Interview, 01/27/2011). This sparked additional questions about how small charter organizations secure resources needed to hire and train sufficient staff, maintain professional learning activities, and so on.

Further, research suggests that positions in charter schools can be more demanding and offer less job-security and lower salaries than positions in TPS districts (Gross, 2011). One could infer that such circumstances might lead to higher teacher turnover rates or more difficulty attracting highly qualified staff. Preliminary evidence here corroborates these findings. That is, administrators discussed the challenge of filling positions and even losing already hired staff to the TPS district. LCS administrators suggested that this was due to the fact that the TPS district is able to offer better wages (Interviews, 11/09/2010). This has implications for charter schools implementing the turnaround model given that they must replace at least half of their staff. Further research is needed to understand the extent to which attracting and retaining experienced staff (and particularly staff experienced in school turnarounds) impacts the success of turnaround plans.

Lastly, much research suggests that successful turnaround schools develop and maintain external support systems that are all united around a similar vision (Kutash et al., 2010). Administrators at LCS articulated a series of events or exchanges that left them in many ways feeling isolated or unsupported. Additional studies might look at how small charter school programs develop networks for supporting their turnaround efforts.

While some of the challenges facing LCS might be common to all schools implementing turnaround plans, evidence suggests that the organizational and political contexts of small urban charter schools might require unique turnaround planning and implementation strategies in order to achieve intended outcomes. Additional research is needed to better understand turnaround efforts in charter school organizations, specifically implementation of the turnaround model of intervention.

References

Brookings Institution. (2009, May 11). A Discussion with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. Retrieved on June 7, 2011 from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2009/0511_duncan/20090511_education.pdf

Center for Research on Educational Outcomes, CREDO. (2009, June). Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States. Retrieved on March 23, 2011 from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_CREDO.pdf

Cooper, H. (2011, March 15). Obama Urges Education Law Overhaul. [Electronic version]. The New York Times, A24.

District Level Improvement Plan. (2010-11). Laker Charter School School.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: CA: Josey-Bass.

Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (2008). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

Goddard, R., Hoy, W., & Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507.

Gross, B. (2011). Inside charter schools: Unlocking doors to student success. An initiative of the national charter school research project. University of Washington: Center on Reinventing Public Education.

Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S., & Darwin, M. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools: A practice guide (NCEE# 2008-4020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Retrieved from Http://ies.Ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides,

Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the no child left behind act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3.

Kruse, S., Seashore Louis, K. (2009). Building Strong School Cultures: A Guide to Leading Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Kowal, J. & Hassel, E. A. (2005). School restructuring under No Child Left Behind: What works when? Turnarounds with new leaders and staff. Washington, DC: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from http://www.centerforcsri.org/pubs/restructuring/KnowledgeIssues4Turnaround.pdf

Kutash, J., Nico, E., Gorin, E., Rahmatullah, S., Tallant, K. ( September 2010). The School Turnaround Field Guide. FSG Social Impact Advisors.

Learning Point Associates. (2010, June). School Restructuring: What Works When? (3^rd ed.) Retrieved March 23, 2011 from http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/School_Restructuring_Guide.pdf

Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass Publishers.

State 2009 Charter School Law. Laws of State 2009, chapter 96, article 2, section 41.

State Department of Education. (2010, August 5). AYP Results: Statewide Summary.

State Department of Education. State Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Definition.

State Department of Education. School Report Cards.

State Department of Education. (2009-10). Revenue Comparison Statements.

State Department of Education. (2010, July 29). Schools Receive Nearly $24.5 Million Dollars in School Improvement Grants for Comprehensive Turnaround.

State Department of Education (2010). Twenty-six Schools Apply for School Improvement Grant Opportunity.

Murphy, J. (2009). Turning around failing schools: Policy insights from the corporate, government, and nonprofit sector. Educational Policy, 23(6), 796-830.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity-One’s own. Educational Researcher 17(7), 17-21.

Trujillo, T. & Rénee, M. (2012). Democratic School Turnarounds: Pursuing Equity and Learning from Evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved October 10, 2012 from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/democratic-school-turnarounds.

West Ed (2007). K-8 Charter Schools Closing the Achievement Gap: Innovations in Education.

41 Detroit Public Schools to Become Charters. (March 14, 2011). Huffington Post. Retrieved on May 27, 2011 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/detroit-charter-schools_n_835719.html

United States Department of Education. (2011, March 9). Duncan Says 82 Percent of America's Schools Could "Fail" Under NCLB This Year: He Urges Congress to Focus New Law on Closing Achievement Gaps. Retrieved on May 23, 2011 from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/duncan-says-82-percent-americas-schools-could-fail-under-nclb-year

Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3^rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

[1] The author can be reached at felbe012@umn.edu.

[i] All names are pseudonyms.

[ii] The term turnaround has two distinct meanings in the literature. Systematic efforts to dramatically improve student achievement over a period of 1-3 years is referred to as school turnaround. Further, one of the intervention models outlined by the US Department of Education that schools can choose for designing their turnaround plan is called the turnaround model. The turnaround model involves replacing the principal and at least 50% of the staff along with a series of programmatic changes

[iii] Due to turnover, only two of the four original administrators are still at LCS. Interviews have been conducted with the two newest members of the school administrative team. This data is currently being coded. It will be incorporated into this paper to the extent the data informs the guiding research questions.

High-Quality Leadership Programs and Influence on an Evolving Student Population: Leadership, Sensemaking, and Inclusive Policy

UCEA — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:41:01 +0000

The 2012 UCEA Graduate Student Summit presented an opportunity for young scholars from across the country and around the world to share their work. Summit sessions allowed authors to present on a wide variety of works at various stages of writing, and to elicit feedback from their peers. At the conclusion of the 2012 Graduate Student Summit, attendees chose five papers to be presented at the UCEA Annual Convention during the 'Highlights from the Graduate Student Summit' session. Meagan (Sumbera) Salazar, Ph.D. candidate at the University of Texas at Austin, was one of five authors chosen by her peers to present during this session. An abbreviated version of the paper she presented is available here. Stay tuned to the Graduate Student Column for more works from 2012’s 'Highlights' session.

High-Quality Leadership Programs and Influence on an Evolving Student Population: Leadership, Sensemaking, and Inclusive Policy

Meagan (Sumbera) Salazar

Ph.D. Candidate

The University of Texas at Austin

Today, building principals have greater responsibility to serve the needs of students with disabilities than ever before. Following the enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), school leaders are encountering increased demands regarding school accountability. NCLB and IDEA, along with other requirements, have expanded administrators’ roles and responsibilities (Lashley, 2007; McHatton, Boyer, Shaunessy, & Terry, 2010; Provost, Boscardin, & Wells, 2010), not the least to include a multitude of special education related issues and concerns (Lashley, 2007; Pazey & Cole, in press; Pazey & Yates, 2012; Yell, 2012). Section 1462(a)(7) of IDEA emphasizes instructional leadership, behavior support, assessment, accountability, and the establishment of positive relationships with parents as the focus for professional development for administrators. The intent is to further prepare school leaders to continue to develop and sustain inclusive schools in order to promote positive academic, and learning, outcomes for all students on campuses.

Statement of the Problem

Principals are not likely to have adequate training, experience, or personal understanding that equips them for addressing the mandates embedded within NCLB and IDEA or enables them to structure the organization to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Based on the results of several investigations of educational leadership programs, administrators lack adequate training in special education content within their principal preparation programs (Cusson, 2010; DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003; Garrison-Wade, 2005; Goor, Schwenn, & Boyer, 1997; Pazey & Cole, in press; Robicheau, Haar, & Palladino, 2008; Wakeman, Browder, Flowers, & Ahlgrim-Delzell, 2006). This lack of knowledge suggests that school leaders may be struggling with policies directed toward meeting NCLB demands and goals, especially for special education populations. In addition, confusion also exists among building principals on how to apply the mandates contained within IDEA (O’Dell & Shafer, 2005; Yell, 2012) due to ambiguity in the language of the legal mandates (Lashley, 2007; McHatton, Boyer, Shaunessy, & Terry, 2010) and the perceived efficacy of their implementation (Bays & Crockett, 2007; Pruslow, 2003). Because of the inability to understand the intent and language of these policies, school leaders experience difficulty when attempting to comply with the federal regulations (Lashley, 2007; McHatton, Boyer, Shaunessy, & Terry, 2010) of NCLB (2001) and IDEA (2004).

As a result, the needs of students with disabilities are not being sufficiently addressed. Although the percentage of students with disabilities being served for the majority of the time (80%) in general education classrooms has increased from 33% in 1990 to approximately 58% in 2009, the implementation of inclusive practices varies across schools (Carter & Hughes, 2006; Houser, Bell, Dickens, & Hicks, 2010; Livingston, Reed, & Good, 2001; Praisner, 2003; Salisbury, 2006) and disability categories (Horrocks, White, & Roberts, 2008; Praisner, 2003). This variation implies that building principals interpret, understand, and enact the mandates within NCLB and IDEA in different ways. Because of the law and the necessity to ensure that students, including students with disabilities, are academically successful, it is important to understand how principals make sense of complex federal mandates and how they interpret legal requirements for implementing these policies in their schools.

Factors that Influence School Leaders’ Ability to Make Sense of and Implement Education Policy

Important to the central focus of this study, researchers have found that effective inclusive school leaders use policy as a springboard to ensure that all members of the school community were committed to educating all students to high academic standards in inclusive settings (Hehir & Katzman, 2012). Further, school leaders who are able to enact important and interrelated roles in vision, structure, culture, learning, and politics were more able to create and establish an inclusive service delivery model (Kose, 2009). In order to explore the degree of policy implementation on a school campus, it is important to first understand how and why school leaders implement policy and what influences implementation (or lack thereof) of policy.

Internal factors. In an investigation of factors that influenced policy implementation activities of principals, Trider and Leithwood (1988) developed a framework that conceptualized how building principals went about policy implementation and its consequences. Among the most influential factors throughout policy implementation were those internal to the principal, such as professional experience, beliefs, and values regarding schooling (Trider & Leithwood, 1998). Congruent with their findings, the research team highlighted the need to examine principals’ beliefs and identify predictable patterns that might influence their decision-making process throughout policy implementation.

Knowledge. It is not only important to understand the beliefs and attitudes of the implementer towards a specific policy, but also the knowledge that an implementer has regarding context of a policy. Trider and Leithwood (1988) posit, “the principal’s special knowledge is one of the central determinants of the pattern of policy implementation behavior in which they engage” (p. 307). For example, principals lacking knowledge of special education are more likely to rely on guidance of a central office or others with existing skills (Trider & Leithwood, 1988) in order to make sense of and implement NCLB (2001) and IDEA (2004) mandates. Principals lacking knowledge of special education would need additional time and training in order to ensure that they are in compliance with special education policy and lead an inclusive school.

Because a school leader’s knowledge regarding a policy also plays a major role in how policy is implemented (Trider & Leithwood, 1988), it will be important to understand how school leaders use what they learn throughout their leadership preparation effects how they make sense of federal inclusive education policy and legal mandates. It will be important to not only focus on “what is taught” in a preparation program, but also how, and if, there is a focus on cultivating factors internal to the school leader (e.g. beliefs, values, paradigms) that influence a principal’s policy implementation process.

Inclusion of Graduates of a “High-Quality” Principal Preparation Program

It is important for principalship preparation programs to meet the current and future needs of schools in order to support the education for all children (Young, Peterson, Short, 2002). With the rising number of students with disabilities being educated for the majority of time (80%) in the general education classroom (Aud et al., 2012), changing student demographics (Matthew & Crow, 2010), and call for accountability for all students (IDEA, 2004; Lashley, 2007; NCLB, 2001), it is critical for principals to understand special education law, teaching practices, evaluation of special education teachers, and programs and services to meet the diverse needs of this population. It should be the goal of all principal preparation programs to develop inclusive instructional leaders (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007) who will invest the time and provide the support needed to address the learning needs of all students, including those with disabilities.

Because where a school leader is prepared makes a difference on teacher qualifications and, ultimately, on student achievement (Fuller, Young, & Baker, 2011; Orr, 2011), it will be important to examine how school leaders use what they learn throughout their preparation in order to make sense of inclusive education policy. This study’s sample was selected from a population of principals who have graduated from an exemplary or “high-quality” university-based principal preparation program that incorporated two important components previously discussed: (1) special education knowledge base and (2) emphasis on factors internal to the individual. Because the focus of this study is to understand how current building principals make sense of federal inclusive policies, NCLB (2001) and IDEA (2004), it is important that the program incorporates special education into the curriculum in an effort to expand the knowledge base of school leaders regarding the federal inclusive policies.

Purpose

For this study, how principals construct what they know about inclusive education policy, why they constructed their meanings in a particular way, their roles in working with special education staff, and with what effects their construction and application of inclusive education policy have on students with disabilities are identified and examined. Weick’s (1994) synthesis of sensemaking is utilized as the theoretical framework. In short, “Sensemaking is what it says it is, namely, making something sensible” (p. 16). Sensemaking is concerned with more than simply interpreting an idea or concept; it is concerned with how individuals author their understanding or interpretation of a particular policy or mandate and the process of interpreting than the outcome of one’s interpretation of such. In addition, sensemaking provides a framework for identification of phenomena around the process of the current school leaders’ application of inclusive education policies.

The purpose of this study is to explore how current school leaders who are graduates of a university-based “high-quality” principalship program make sense of inclusive education policy and legal mandates in order to promote an inclusive school culture. The research questions guiding this study are as follows:

What are the lived experiences of current school leaders who are graduates of a “high-quality” principalship program in regards to special education on their campuses?
How have current school leaders who were graduates of a “high-quality” principalship program made sense of inclusive education policy demands at their schools?
How do current school leaders who are graduates of a “high-quality” principalship program interpret supports that enable them to navigate the complexity of inclusive education policy on their campuses?

Because research in how school leaders make sense of inclusive education policy is limited, this study has the potential to enrich current understanding of ways in which school leaders make sense of and implement complex and changing inclusive educational policies at their schools. This study may provide current school leaders a framework in which they can further understand how they make sense of inclusive education policy. In addition, it has the potential to add to the literature regarding effective components for exemplary principal preparation training as well as the influence exemplary training programs have on students who have been historically underserved. Findings from this study may assist educational administration departments, program directors, and researchers when evaluating the effectiveness of their graduate-level administrator preparation programs on students with special needs.

References

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., Tahan, K. (2011). The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bays, D. A., & Crockett, J. B. (2007). Investigating instructional leadership for special education. Exceptionality, 15(3), 143-161.

Brotherson, M. J., Sheriff, G., Milburn, P., & Schertz, M. (2001). Elementary school principals and their needs and issues for inclusive early childhood programs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21(1), 31-45.

Carter, E. W., & Hughes, C. (2006), Including high school students with severe disabilities in general education classes: Perspectives of general and special educators, paraprofessionals, and administrators. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(2), 174-185.

Cusson, M. (2008). Current and emerging educational organization patterns for the delivery of services to students with disabilities: Implications for the preparation of school administrators (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin).

DiPaola, M. F., Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and special education: The critical role of school leaders. (COPSSE Document No. IB-7). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.

Doyle, L. H. (2002). Leadership and inclusion: Reculturing for reform. International Journal of Educational Reform, 11(1), 38-62.

Fuller, E., Young, M., & Baker, B. (2011). Do principal preparation programs influence student achievement through the building of teacher-team qualifications by the principal? An exploratory analysis. Education Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 173-224.

Garrison-Wade, D., Sobel, D., & Fulmer, C. L. (2007). Inclusive leadership: Preparing principals for the role that awaits them. Educational Leadership and Administration, 19(1), 117-132.

Goor, M., Schwenn, J., & Boyer, L. (1997). Preparing principals for leadership in special education. Intervention in School & Clinic, 32(3), 133-141.

Hehir, T., & Katzman, L. (2012). Effective inclusive schools: Designing successful schoolwide programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Horrocks, J.L., White, G., & Roberts, L. (2008). Principals’ attitudes regarding inclusion of children with autism in Pennsylvania public schools. Journal of Autism Development Disorder, 38, 1462-1473. DOI 10.1007/s10803-007-0522-x.

Houser, M. A., Bell, G., Dickens, V., & Hicks, T. (2010). The relationship between selected leadership behaviors and attitudes toward behavioral and social inclusive practices among middle school principals in North Carolina. Faculty Working Papers from the School of Education. Paper 17. http://digitalcommons.uncfsu.edu/soe_faculty_wp/17

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

Kose, B. W. (2009). The principal’s roles in professional development for social justice. Urban Education, 44(6), 628-663.

Lashley, C. (2007). Principal leadership for special education: An ethical framework. Exceptionality, 15(3), 177-187.

Livingston, M., Reed, T., & Good, J.W. (2001). Attitudes of rural school principals towards inclusive practices and placements of students with severe disabilities. Journal of Research for Educational Leaders, 1(1), 49-62.

Matthews, J.L., Crow, G.M. (2010). The principalship: New roles in a professional learning community. Boston, MA: Person Education, Inc.

McHatton, P. A., Boyer, N. R., Shaunessy, E., & Terry, P. M. (2010). Principals’ perceptions of preparation and practice in gifted and special education content: Are we doing enough? Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 5(1), 1-22

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U. S. C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002).

Orr, M. (2011). Pipeline to preparation to advancement: Graduates’ experiences in, throughout, and beyond leadership preparation. Education Administration Quarterly, 47(1) 114-172.

Praisner, C. L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals towards the inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135-145.

Pazey, B.L., & Cole, H.A. (in press). The role of special education training in the development of socially just leaders: Building an equity consciousness in educational leadership programs. Educational Administration Quarterly.

Pazey, B.L., & Yates, J.R. (2012). Conceptual and historical foundations of special education administration. In J.B. Crocket, B.S. Billingsley, & M.R. Boscardin (Eds.). Leadership and administration for special education (pp. 17-37). New York, NY: Routledge.

Provost, J. , Boscardin, M. L., Wells, C. (2010). Perceptions of principal leadership behaviors in Massachusetts in the era of school reform. Journal of School Leadership, 20(5), 532-560.

Robicheau, J., Haar, J., & Palladino, J. (2008). Preparation and leadership in special education. The Connexions Project retrieved from http://cnx.org/content/m18123/1.1

Salisbury, C. L. (2006). Principals’ perceptions on inclusive elementary schools. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(1), 70-82.

Trider, D. M. & Leithwood, K. A. (1988). Exploring the influences on principal behavior. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(3), 289-311.

Wakeman, S., Browder, D., Flowers, D., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2006). Principals’ knowledge of fundamental and current issues in special education. NASSP Bulletin, 90(2), 153-174.

Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Student and Principal Ethnicity

UCEA — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:26:15 +0000

Student and Principal Ethnicity

An ongoing stream in my research agenda investigates the distribution of ethnicity and gender amongst public school educators. Moreover, I am interested in how these distributions change at different levels of campus assignments. That is to say, do the ethnicity and gender distributions of a population of educators look the same when you consider discrete categories of educators, defined by role? For example, would a gender and ethnicity cross-tabulation look the same for all teachers in a particular district as it would for principals in that same district? With the goal of creating a critical discussion, this column entry uses descriptive and inferential statistics about the 2010-11 school year in Texas to provide practical examples of my current, early-stage approach to exploring these and other questions.

In order to facilitate a discussion around the aforementioned questions, I conceptualize two related streams of inquiry:

What is the distribution of ethnicity amongst head principals and how does this change for schools of varying context? More specifically, how does the racial composition of head principals differ in schools with primarily-Black, primarily-Latino, and primarily-White student bodies?
How does the racial composition of a campus’ student body predict the race of the head principal, and how does this effect change for primarily-Black, Latino, and White student bodies?

First Stream of Inquiry

In response to the first stream of inquiry, the ethnicity of administratively-certified educators[1] in Texas, breaks down as follows:

Table 1: Ethnicity of Administratively-Certified Educators in Texas, 2010-11 School Year

Ethnicity	Freq.	Percent
Asian	319	0.67
Black	6882	14.49
Latino	10,145	21.36
Other	638	1.34
White	29,519	62.14

While the ethnicity of public school head principals[2] breaks down as follows:

Table 2: Ethnicity of Head Principals in Texas, 2010-11 School Year

Ethnicity	Freq.	Percent
Asian	32	0.43
Black	823	11.05
Latino	1,538	20.64
Other	100	1.34
White	4,958	66.54

If we compare the percentages in tables 1 and 2, we see that Blacks and Latinos are represented at a lower rate amongst head principals than they are amongst the administratively-certified. White educators account for 62% of the administratively certified, yet over 66% of head principals – an overrepresentation not shared by any other ethnicity.

The ethnicity of head principals becomes even more interesting when we consider the contexts of the campuses to which they are assigned. Tables 3, 4, and 5 display the distribution of head principal ethnicity in schools with greater than 50% Latino, Black, and White student enrollment, respectively.

Table 3: Head Principal Ethnicity in Schools with Greater than 50% Latino Student Enrollment

Ethnicity	Freq.	Percent
Black	316	9.5
Latino	1354	40.5
White	1612	48.2

As Table 3 illustrates, nearly half (48.2%) of all schools with greater than 50% Latino enrollment have White head principals. Just over 40% of those same schools are administered by Latino head principals, while less than 10% are administered by Black head principals.

Table 4: Head Principal Ethnicity in Schools with Greater than 50% Black Student Enrollment

Ethnicity	Freq.	Percent
Black	260	63.0
Latino	19	4.6
White	124	30.0

Table 4 shows that schools with greater than 50% Black enrollment are most likely to have a Black head principal. Just under one-third of majority-Black schools (30.0%) are administered by White head principals. Less than 5% of head principals in majority-Black schools are Latino.

Table 5: Head Principal Ethnicity in Schools with Greater than 50% White Student Enrollment

Ethnicity	Freq.	Percent
Black	79	3.2
Latino	80	3.2
White	2283	92.0

As Table 5 illustrates, 92% of majority-White schools are administered by White head principals. Less than 7% of these same schools are administered by either a Black or Latino head principal.

Considered together, Tables 3 through 5 paint an interesting picture of school organization in Texas. The ethnicity of Texas principals writ large is quite different in schools which with greater than 50% enrollment representing a single race. It is plain to see that Latino principals tend to be in primarily-Latino schools, with the same being true for Black principals and White principals in Black and White schools, respectively. A peculiarity however, is the prevalence - or rather, lack thereof - of Black and Latino head principals in White schools. Barely six percent of majority-White campuses have a Black or Latino head principal. It is also worth noting the low level of Latino representation amongst head principals in majority-Black schools (only 19 occurrences, despite there being 1,538 Latino head principals in the state).

Second Stream of Inquiry

Because of their prevalence in each type of school compared to state-wide, Tables 3 through 5 suggest that White principals end up in White schools, Black principals in Black schools, and Latino principals in Latino schools. Still, White principals seem to have the benefit of considerable placement rates in all types of schools.

As a result of this conclusion, I then began to wonder how increasing concentrations of a single race amongst a campus’ student body predict the race of a principal. As a practical example, I began to wonder how probable it was for a primarily-White school to have a non-White principal, and how that probability changes as the concentration of White students increases. In order to further explore these questions, I constructed the graphs in Figures 1 through 3.

Figures 1 through 3 represent an exploration of how the ethnicity of a student body predicts the ethnicity of its principal[3]. Using Figure 1 as an example, we see the percentage of White students predicting the probability of having a non-White principal. The line represents a quadratic prediction (hence the curve) of having a non-White principal (entered as a discrete binary variable where 1=non-White principal, and 0=White principal) based upon the percentage of White students and the percentage of White students squared. We see a precipitous drop in probability of a non-White principal as the proportion of White students on a campus student approaches 50%.

Figure 1: Probability of Non-White Principal, Predicted by a Quadratic Fit of the Percentage of White Students

Figure 2: Probability of Non-Latino Principal, Predicted by a Quadratic Fit of the Percentage of Latino Students

Figure 3: Probability of Non-Black Principal, Predicted by a Quadratic Fit of the Percentage of Black Students

It can be seen from Figures 2 and 3 that increasing proportions of Latino and Black students do not have nearly as strong of a predicted effect on the ethnicity of head principals as do increasing proportions of White students. Schools with 50% Black or Latino student populations are equally likely to have Black and Latino principals as they are to have non-Black and non-Latino principals, respectively. Conversely, the probability of schools with a 50% White student population having a non-White principal is less than 0.1 to 1. This seems to suggest that head principalship in primarily-White schools is reserved for White principals.

As a quantitative criticalist (Stage, 2007) and educational administration scholar intent on furthering social justice, the data and findings in this paper raise serious concerns about the ways race plays a role in the assignment and distribution of school leaders and have brought about a series of questions that I have been grappling with:

Does the race of a principal as it relates to the race of the student body actually “matter”? That is to say, should certain principals be in certain schools? If so, why?
To what degree do student populations and associated district micro-politics determine/predict principal ethnicity? Or do principals have more say in the campuses to which they apply to and accept positions than perhaps I’m giving them credit for?
Often times, the demographics of school districts, school attendance zones, and the immediate neighborhood around a school are very different from one another. The same can be said of the demographics of students and educators, state-wide. How does this play into the racial composition of schools and administrators?

In my quest to refine my answers for answers to these questions and others, I have encountered some interesting literature. Some of that literature explores the congruence of race between teachers and students and the effect of that congruence (Carrington et al., 2007; Dee, 2004, 2005; Downey & Pribesh, 2004; Ehrenberg, Goldhaber, & Brewer, 1995; Francis et al., 2008; Irvine, 1986; Oates, 2003; Pigott & Cowen, 2000). Much more informative, however, have been writings in our own discipline which explore issues of race, ethnicity, and intersectionality for school leaders in varying contexts (Blackmore, Thomson, & Barty, 2006; Brown, 1992; Dillard, 2010; Foster & Tillman, 2009; Lomotey, 1987; Pollard, 1997; Reed & Evans, 2008; Tallerico, 2000; Tillman, 2004).

Your thoughts, feelings, recommendations, reactions, anything – are welcomed and appreciated.

- Bradley Davis

References

Blackmore, J., Thomson, P., & Barty, K. (2006). Principal selection. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 34(3), 297–317. doi:10.1177/1741143206065267

Brown, K. (1992). Do African-Americans need immersion schools: The paradoxes created by legal conceptualization of race and public education. Iowa Law Review, 78, 813.

Carrington, B., Francis, B., Hutchings, M., Skelton, C., Read, B., & Hall, I. (2007). Does the gender of the teacher really matter? Seven to eight year-olds’ accounts of their interactions with their teachers. Educational Studies, 33(4), 397–413. doi:10.1080/03055690701423580

Dee, T. S. (2004). Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 195–210. doi:10.1162/003465304323023750

Dee, T. S. (2005). A Teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matter? The American Economic Review, 95(2), 158–165. doi:10.2307/4132809

Dillard, C. B. (2010). The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen: Examining an endarkened feminist epistemology in educational research and leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(6), 661–681. doi:10.1080/09518390050211565

Downey, D. B., & Pribesh, S. (2004). When race matters: Teachers’ evaluations of students’ classroom behavior. Sociology of Education, 77(4), 267–282. doi:10.1177/003804070407700401

Ehrenberg, R. G., Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1995). Do teachers’ race, gender, and ethnicity matter?: Evidence from NELS88. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w4669

Foster, L., & Tillman, L. C. (Eds.). (2009). African American perspectives on leadership in schools: Building a culture of empowerment. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Francis, B., Skelton, C., Carrington, B., Hutchings, M., Read, B., & Hall, I. (2008). A perfect match? Pupils’ and teachers’ views of the impact of matching educators and learners by gender. Research Papers in Education, 23(1), 21–36. doi:10.1080/02671520701692510

Irvine, J. J. (1986). Teacher–student interactions: Effects of student race, sex, and grade level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(1), 14–21. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.78.1.14

Lomotey, K. (1987). Black principals for Black students: Some preliminary observations. Urban Education, 22(2), 173–181. doi:10.1177/004208598702200203

Oates, G. L. S. C. (2003). Teacher-student racial congruence, teacher perceptions, and test performance. Social Science Quarterly, 84(3), 508–525. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.8403002

Pigott, R. L., & Cowen, E. L. (2000). Teacher race, child race, racial congruence, and teacher ratings of children’s school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 38(2), 177–195. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(99)00041-2

Pollard, D. S. (1997). Race, Gender, and educational leadership: Perspectives from African American principals. Educational Policy, 11(3), 353–374. doi:10.1177/0895904897011003005

Reed, L., & Evans, A. E. (2008). “What you see is [not always] what you get!” Dispelling race and gender leadership assumptions. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21(5), 487–499. doi:10.1080/09518390802297797

Stage, F. K. (2007). Answering critical questions using quantitative data. New Directions for Institutional Research, (133), 5–16. doi:10.1002/ir.200

Tallerico, M. (2000). Gaining access to the superintendency: Headhunting, gender, and color. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 18–43. doi:10.1177/00131610021968886

Tillman, L. C. (2004). (Un)Intended consequences? The impact of the Brown V. Board of Education Decision on the employment status of Black educators. Education and Urban Society, 36(3), 280–303. doi:10.1177/0013124504264360

[1] Administratively-certified educators are defined as those holding non-expired, state-issued principal certification.

[2] Head principals are defined as those that are the chief administrator of a campus. This does not include associate principals or deans.

[3] 7,541 principals employed during the 2010-11 school year in Texas were used as for these analyses.

Race, Leadership Standards, & Administrator Preparation and Evaluation

Bradley Davis — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:54:35 +0000

Most readers of this column entry are in some way associated with a college or university department which prepares public school leaders. Whether teacher-leaders, principals, or superintendents, it is likely that graduates of these departments are prepared and will someday be evaluated under the guidance of a particular set of leadership standards. Leadership standards typically contain a list of actions that administrators should follow, or a list of school outcomes they should affect. For many preparation programs and educational agencies, leadership standards represent the minimum of desired outcomes. Unfortunately for many other programs and agencies, these very same leadership standards represent a ceiling or goal.

Implicit in the very existence of leadership standards is the belief that these actions and outcomes are desirable and appropriate for all educational settings. The ISLLC standards claim to provide, “high-level guidance and insight about the traits, functions of work, and responsibilities expected of school and district leaders” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008, p. 5). Despite this assertion, the standards and their accompanying documentation make no specific mention of race or ethnicity. Given the current state of our educational system and our knowledge of the achievement gap, one is left to wonder how a set of leadership standards devoid of explicit consideration of race can truly provide ‘high level guidance and insight’ into the effective practice of school leadership.

In addition to the plethora of assessment data showing students of color performing at lower levels than other students on academic measures, there are a wide range of other racial and ethnic disparities in our schools. Recent data compiled by the Office for Civil rights on student discipline found that Black students were three and a half times more likely to be suspended or expelled than their white peers (Adams, Robelen, & Shah, 2012). Gregory, Skiba, and Noguera (2010) investigated the relationship between school disciplinary decisions and the academic achievement gap and suggested that because Black and Latino students are suspended and expelled – and thus removed from classroom instruction - at higher rates for the same infractions than their white counterparts, differences along racial lines in educational outcomes are to be expected. Equally alarming is the disproportionate number of students of color identified for special education support services, and conversely, the low numbers of students of color classified as gifted and talented (Office for Civil Rights, 2006).

Despite these realities of our education system, school leaders are currently held accountable for educating children of all races to prescribed levels of proficiency as stated in NCLB and various state and local accountability systems. However, as stated, most leadership standards are void of any expectations that address the socio-political implications of race and its impact on leadership and student achievement. This establishes a very clear disconnect between holding school leaders accountable for educating all children (evaluation) and equipping them with the knowledge and proficiencies (preparation) necessary to address the socio-political implications of race and schooling.

As student populations become increasingly diverse, the resegregation of schools on the rise, and a system that allows teachers to choose whom they want to teach, school leaders charged with effectively educating all children must be adept at addressing a multitude of issues related to race. Add to these race-related issues the increase of students and families living in poverty with decreases in educational funding, and it becomes clear that today’s school leaders cannot lead in a colorblind vacuum.

So, I ask you, what leadership standards guide the preparation of school administrators in your department? What standards guide their evaluation once they on the job? For those of you in the U.S., perhaps your state has its own leadership standards. If so, what do they include? What leadership standards do you think are most appropriate? It is worth noting that this entry is not an ad-hominem attack upon the ISLCC or any other set of leadership standards. The absence of explicit consideration of race is the norm for leadership standards nationwide. Instead, this entry seeks to ask why seemingly-obvious, culturally-conscious responses to the question “What matters in school leadership?” continue to be excluded via the purposeful colorblindness of the institutions, organizations, and leadership standards driving the current state of educational administration.

Adams, C., Robelen, E., & Shah, N. (2012, March 7). Civil Rights Data Show Retention Disparities. Education Week. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/T2hNFg

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards_2008.pdf

Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The Achievement Gap and the Discipline Gap Two Sides of the Same Coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59–68. doi:10.3102/0013189X09357621

Office for Civil Rights. (2006). 2006 national and state estimations. US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ocrdata.ed.gov/downloads/projections/2006/2006-nation-projection.xls

Staffing vs. Retention: A summary of Darleen Opfer's “Defining and Identifying Hard-to-Staff Schools: The Role of School Demographics and Conditions”

UCEA — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:59:25 +0000

One assumption in education today is that no teacher wants to work at a “difficult” school, so we must figure out how to get teachers into the urban or rural schools. Money is spent and programs are developed for the very purpose of feeding teachers into the pipeline of “hard-to-staff” schools. In Dr. Darleen Opfer’s research entitled, “Defining and Identifying Hard-to-Staff Schools: The Role of School Demographics and Conditions,” published in the October 2011 volume of Educational Administration Quarterly, she questions whether finding teachers that want to fill the positions in these schools is as difficult as some people would like to have you believe. This study explored 3,371 vacancies in 1,040 schools and tried to determine what demographic factors and work conditions were related to a school being hard-to-staff. The term “hard-to-staff” dealt specifically with the hiring process and treated attrition as a separate issue. The demographic characteristics considered were location (rural or urban), high-poverty population, high-minority population, and low-achieving schools with high attrition. The work conditions were defined as central office help or hindrance, quality of the applicant pool, level of school resources, and opportunities for career development. The methodology was a survey designed to elicit information on vacancies in Ohio Schools for the 2004-2005 school year as well as the factors that influenced the filling of the vacancies.

In Dr. Opfer’s literature review, she highlights the lack of empirical studies that have been conducted on the topics of teacher recruitment, teacher retention, teacher attrition, and hard-to-staff schools. However, she argues that there are often claims of causation made regarding staffing and certain demographics, such as race and poverty level, when there has merely been some level of correlation. Another criticism she raises is that the reasons schools struggle to hire teachers has been coupled with the reasons they struggle to keep teachers whereas those problems are distinct. Also, she critiques the labor markets conceptual framework, which uses opportunity cost to explain whether individuals will stay in teaching. Opfer (2011) states:

Because of the predominance of the labor market/opportunity costs conceptualization of teacher recruitment, retention, and attrition, most writings on hard-to-staff schools and state hard-to-staff policies assume that attrition, in combination with school-level demographics associated with high attrition, are proxies for a school being hard-to-staff. (P.587)

Researchers have made the mistake of not only looking at recruitment and retention as similar problems, but they have also assumed that they could generalize the decisions of individuals to describe the circumstances of the organization.

Instead, the author argues for an organizational conceptual framing because she feels that it can more accurately explain why schools are hard to staff and possibly even allow researchers to shift the problem from staffing to retaining teachers. This restructuring allows the author to draw new conclusions about the problems of teacher recruitment, retention, and attrition. For instance, she says, “It may not be that teachers are leaving urban, low-SES schools per se but, rather, that they are leaving schools with poor working conditions or ones whose conditions were not what their initial perceptions indicated” (Opfer, 2011, p. 589). She highlights two studies that have used this approach to study attrition, the work of Ingersoll in 2001 and Loeb et al. in 2005. She believes that in order to investigate school level problems, you must have school level measures.

This study was survey-based with a two-part analysis, both descriptive and explorative. The surveys that were filled out by school administrators described the hiring process and the factors affecting the process. There was a 67% response rate, but she determined that the responders and non-responders were similar in terms of demographics and rates of vacancies. The author found that the demographics of high poverty, student ethnicity, and school location were not as closely associated with staffing as organizational factors such as the central office role in hiring. Schools were divided in to the categories of high-minority, urban, high-poverty, and average. The high-minority, high-poverty, and urban schools all filled their open positions faster and high minority and urban schools had more applicants per position. On the other hand, high-poverty, high-minority, and urban schools all reported having difficulty hiring teachers that could teach all students, including those students who are struggling. In order to figure out what school characteristics were associated with hard-to-staff outcomes and whether they were the same across schools, Opfer used three regression models to explore the relationship between the dependent variables of demographic characteristics, school conditions, and school achievement and their relationship to staffing.

In this study, Dr. Opfer found that high-poverty and high-minority schools do not have trouble hiring teachers and that those teachers are often certified and in-field teachers. Across all the schools, however, the principals felt that the quality of the applicant pool needed to be improved. This research can help to lay the groundwork for understanding that the factors making it hard to staff schools are not outside the realm of the school district, and there can be changes made to create a better pool of applicants. Too often the problem of staffing is explained using demographics, which masks the real problems.

Having been a teacher in a high poverty, high-minority school with low achievement and high attrition in an urban, high crime neighborhood, I can confirm that the school’s demographics did not play a part in whether most of the teachers choose to work there. In fact, many teachers were drawn to the high needs situation because they felt like they would have greater chance to make an impact. I attended several hiring fairs in New York City on behalf of my school, and many of the candidates would have taken a job offer on the spot. Unfortunately, the greater problem was that most of those teachers couldn’t give answers to interview questions that showed they were prepared to deal with the large portion of students who were struggling with literacy and basic math skills much less how they would deal with disruptive classroom behavior. All of those factors are building blocks to being able to have a learning environment where you can push high-level thinking and truly prepare students to achieve. It seems to me that when looking at the staffing problem, we need to make sure we are looking at the right issues. Schools often aren’t having trouble getting applicants; they are having trouble getting the right candidates in the right jobs. There needs to be more research in this area of recruitment and retention so that we can move past the common belief that teachers don’t want to work in schools deemed “difficult” and begin to understand what makes teachers successful in those school environments.

Source: Defining and Identifying Hard-to-Staff Schools: The Role of School Demographics and Conditions (http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/current) by Darleen Opfer

Value Added for Principals?

Bradley Davis — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 18:57:46 +0000

Graduate students of UCEA member institutions enter a wide variety of professions upon graduation. Some enter the professoriate, others the public school system, the policy world, and so on. The world of educational administration is vast, as is the circumference of our collective research. That being said, there are few of us who will not be interested in the evolution of principal evaluation.

The purpose of this column entry is to expose graduate students to modern research exploring value added measures of principal effectiveness. By now we are all familiar with value added modeling (VAM) for classroom teachers, but few are knowledgeable of the inner-workings of VAM for principals. The remainder of this column begins with a brief description of the extant research on principal effects and concludes with a request for reader feedback on which article or authors you’d like to see interviewed in this space.

Empirical approaches to quantifying principal contribution to student achievement are not entirely new. According to my literature review, the first attempt to quantify principal impact on student achievement was done by Eberts & Stone (1988). Using data from over 14,000 students across 300 school districts, the authors regressed 4^th grade mathematics achievement upon a selection of principal characteristics, controlling for prior achievement and a variety of other school and classroom factors. Amongst other conclusions, the authors found that principal involvement with school instruction (instructional leadership) was significantly associated with higher gains in student achievement.

Brewer (1993) sought to confirm the findings of Eberts & Stone with a data set of 2,070 high school students containing math and reading achievement data along with information about the schools and administrators to whom the students are tied. Brewer conducted similar regressions (although modeled to include additional factors) and concluded that principals influence student achievement through teacher selection and goal-setting (human resource leadership and vision). Interestingly, Brewer found that neither principal experience as a teacher or administrator is significantly related to student achievement.

The past few years have seen an explosion in research around principal contributions to student achievement. Most studies look at principals who move across multiple campuses and try to determine the effect those administrators had on student achievement during their stay. Some of these works have created value added estimates for individual administrators. Below are citations for each of the articles I’ve reviewed, along with a very brief description of their content and findings.

Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Estimating Principal Effectiveness. Working Paper 32. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.caldercenter.org/publications.cfm

In this CALDER center working paper, Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin use Texas data to explore principal contributions to school-wide achievement. Additional factors explored include the relationship between principal quality and student absenteeism. The authors find that variation in principal quality is greatest in low-income schools and that principal mobility between schools is most common for individuals with the highest and lowest value added measures.

Clark, D., Martorell, P., & Rockoff, J. (2009). School Principals and School Performance. Working Paper 38. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.caldercenter.org/publications.cfm

In contrast to Brewer (1993) this CALDER publication finds that principal experience is positively correlated with student achievement. Using New York City administrative data, the authors use information about principals' educational background, training, and work experience in addition to a variety of school and student variables to calculate principal value added measures. The authors make the argument that the sorting of less-experienced administrators into already low-achieving schools can further expand educational inequity.

Coelli, M., & Green, D. (2009). Leadership Effects: School Principals and Student Outcomes. Preliminary paper. Retrieved from http://sites.google.com/site/mickcoelli/academics

This paper explored the relationship between principal effectiveness and the academic achievement and graduation rate of high school seniors in British Columbia. The authors conclude that principal effects are stronger with regards to academic achievement (as measured by a standardized ELA exam) than for graduation rates. One interesting finding from the article is that principal effects take time to show up in achievement data. In other words, it takes time for a principal to reorganize the school to match her vision.

Dhuey, E., & Smith, J. (2010). How Important Are School Principals in the Production of Student Achievement? Preliminary paper. Retrieved from http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~edhuey/index.php/home/page/research

This is another study using administrative data from British Columbia. Here the authors find significant, measurable principal effects on student achievement in both math and reading at the elementary level. The authors suggest that a one standard deviation increase in principal quality relates to a roughly 0.2 standard deviation increase in student performance. In this study, the authors find no relationship between principal experience and principal value added.

Lipscomb, S., Teh, B., Gill, B., Chiang, H., & Owens, A. (2010). Teacher and Principal Value-Added: Research Findings and Implementation Practices. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.!

This publication from Mathematica research explores the difficulties associated with assigning value added measures to principals. For an excellent review of various methdological approaches to VAM for both teachers and principals, look no further than this publication.

One piece of research recently brought to my attention is a working paper by Cannon, Figlio, and Sass (2011). Their works is particularly fascinating in that it explores the effect of principal policy choices on student achievement. Their data set contains three periods of survey responses over five years, which, “asked principals to identify a variety of policies and resource-use areas along a variety of lines, including policies to improve low-performing students, lengthening instructional time, reduced class size for subject, narrowing of the curriculum, scheduling systems, policies to improve low-performing teachers, teacher resources, teacher incentives, and teacher autonomy information” (p. 7). Tying survey response data to achievement data has allowed to the authors to match principal policy choices to changes in principal value added measures. The paper is very detailed in its consideration of assumptions and explanations of the statistical models employed. I highly suggest you check it out.

Educational researchers and UCEA have long been interested in the effects that principals have on student achievement. The vast majority of the works cited in this post represent approaches to understanding principal effects from outside schools of education; work primarily done by economists. Future research on principal effects will depend on scholars to have a firm foundation in the deep, established knowledge base constructed by the tireless efforts of Leithwood, Hallinger, Heck, and Murphy (to name only a few), but also a clear understanding of the methodology employed by researchers at the helm of modern educational policy development, whom increasingly are not coming from schools of education.

Finally, giving credit where credit is due, I would like to thank Dr. Li Feng of Texas State University in San Marcos for bringing the Cannon, Figlio, & Sass paper to my attention. It was the Cannon, Figlio, & Sass piece that brought to my attention the work of Clark, Martorell, & Rockoff (2009) as well as another article I have elected not to discuss in this space (Beteille, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2009); therefore I wish to thank Sarah Cannon, David Figlio, & Tim Sass for their contributions to the above literature review.

References:

Beteille, T., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2009). Effective Schools: Managing the recruitment, development, and retention of high-quality teachers. Working Paper 37. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.caldercenter.org/publications.cfm

Brewer, D. J. (1993). Principals and student outcomes: Evidence from U.S. high schools. Economics of Education Review, 12(4), 281-292. doi:10.1016/0272-7757(93)90062-L

Cannon, S., Figlio, D., & Sass, T. (2010). The Policy Choices of Effective Principals. preliminary paper. Retrieved from http://myweb.fsu.edu/tsass/Papers/

Coelli, M., & Green, D. (2009). Leadership Effects: School Principals and Student Outcomes. Preliminary paper. Retrieved from http://sites.google.com/site/mickcoelli/academics

Eberts, R. W., & Stone, J. A. (1988). Student achievement in public schools: Do principals make a difference? Economics of Education Review, 7(3), 291-299. doi:10.1016/0272-7757(88)90002-7

Lipscomb, S., Teh, B., Gill, B., Chiang, H., & Owens, A. (2010). Teacher and Principal Value-Added: Research Findings and Implementation Practices. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.