Two guiding research questions drove
this study: 1. What did principals perceive as their
most effective strategies and practices for enhancing student achievement in an exit- ing PI school? 2. How did exiting PI principals address
negative school culture perceptions among staff associated with being designated as a PI school? Ten principals from school districts
throughout California participated in the study. Each had presided as school principal over a site that was successful in exiting PI. Data was acquired through in-depth inter- views, review of documentation pertinent to PI schools, and reflective written responses from the principals. The results suggested that successful
principals focused on three key areas in turning around their underperforming school: school culture, instructional leader- ship and state standards.
Changing school culture School culture, defined as the values
and beliefs of a school (Cromwell, 2002), is primarily derived from the view educators have of students and learning (Muhammad, 2009). According to the principals, school culture always requires change, often sig- nificant change, in order to create movement out of PI. This area had the most input from interview responses. Principals indicated that shifting school culture was driven by an undying belief that all students can achieve. According to one principal, “If somebody
said something about, ‘Well my students did badly on this theme test because they go home and don’t get any support;’ I under- stand that they don’t have support at home – we can’t change that. We have no control over those adults. We have control over what we do at this site. We’ve got six hours a day of instruction so it needs to be high qual- ity. We need to have high expectations. The community says because these kids live in poverty, they’re never going to go anywhere. Well, they’re right. They’re never going to go anywhere because they’re going to rise to your lowest expectation.” Likewise, another principal said, “If you don’t address the cultural issues first, you’ll
said: “[If] you feel this goal is impossible to
reach, then you do not belong here because it is this kind of thinking that is preventing us from reaching our goals. We either do not believe in our capacity to make this happen, or what is worse, we do not believe that our students are either worthy to pursue such goals or that they themselves are not capable of achieving those goals.” This same principal reported that the fol-
lowing year, 15 teachers requested transfers to other schools, which left the principal with a core group of teachers committed to change. The principal response to addressing
school culture had to be direct, correc- tive and immediate when confronted with those who did not support learning for all students. This required a high level of skill in addressing individual and group dynam- ics, along with confidence in believing what works for increasing student achievement. Of particular note for increasing student
achievement was the role of ongoing assess- ments (formatives) in focusing teachers on necessary instructional improvements. En-
never make the educational issues happen. We can have solid curriculum, we can have a solid assessment system, we can have great data review tools, but if we keep making ex- cuses for kids and where they come from, then we’re just never going to make it.” Participating principals found it essential
to address the actions of those staff members who were unwilling to put forth the effort required to support needed change. In con- fronting staff beliefs directly, one principal
couraging teachers to focus on instructional
improvements warranted by assessment data required instructional leadership on the part of the principal. This in turn led to successes in student achievement that sup- ported the cultural shift.
Instructional leadership All principal participants emphasized
the importance of providing instructional leadership. This second key area was de- scribed as a function of intense focus on the goal of enhancing student achievement. Principals accomplished this through fre- quent systematic classroom observations (walk-throughs), followed by immediate feedback for the teacher. One principal suggested, “At least half
of my day, every day, was centered around planning the execution of classroom visits.” Successful principals established expecta- tions for the visits, and “teachers were always very aware of what it was I was looking for whenever I did walk-throughs. I put it in the bulletin every day.” Classroom observations were accompa-
nied, in many instances, with modeling and coaching to assist teachers in adopting new strategies for classroom instruction. The principals emphasized using assessment data to drive instructional decisions and to have the difficult conversations with teachers. One principal described the conversa-
tion thus: “I’d start talking to a teacher and present data over a two- to three-year period about how their students weren’t achieving … there really wasn’t anything they could argue with. They could not say that what they were doing was better because there was no data to support it. And I would challenge them – if you can show me something other than what I am showing you, bring it in and we can talk about it. What I’m seeing in your class presently, just looking at the data, at your student achievement…what you’re doing does not work.”
Focus on standards In the third key area, principals stressed
the importance of focusing on state stan- dards in order to exit PI, rather than rely- ing exclusively on the state core curriculum when designing instruction. As teachers be-
January/February 2014 29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40