journal for effective schools spring 2008

Journal forEffective Schools

In This IssueArticles

Merit and Achievement in the Post-Modern WorldAllan Ornstein

Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary andApplication for Public SchoolsWilliam A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan

The Effective Schools Correlate - Instructional Leadership: SanDiego’s ApplicationJohn J. Marshak

Using Effective Schools Research to Promote CulturallyCompetent Leadership PracticeKaren S. Crum and Whitney H. Sherman

Internships: Building Contextual Relevancy for ImprovedInstructionWilliam G. Cunningham and Whitney H. Sherman

Book Review

Class Counts: Education, Inequality, and the Shrinking MiddleClassAuthor Allan OrnsteinWilliam A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan

Spring 2008 Volume 7, Number 1

Spring 20

08

The Journal for Effective Schools

Volum

e 7, N

umb

er 1

Published by theIntermountain Center for Education EffectivenessCollege of EducationIdaho State University

Our MissionThe Journal for Effective Schools provides educators and administrators involved or

interested in the Effective Schools Process with the opportunity to share their research, practice,

policies, and expertise with others.

research practice policies

GUEST EDITORWilliam A. Owings, Old Dominion University

ASSOCIATE EDITORSusan Jenkins, Idaho State University

ASSISTANT EDITORCharles Zimmerly, Idaho State University

PRODUCTION EDITORVicki Fanning, Idaho State University

EDITORIAL BOARDWilliam J. Banach, Banach, Banach and Cassidy, Inc.Ben A. Birdsell, Association for Effective Schools, Inc.Anthony Bisciglia, The Effective Schools ReportGordon Cawelti, Retired – Educational Research ServiceJanet H. Chrispeels, University of California – San DiegoTom C. Farley, Effective Schools ConsultantIvan Fitzwater, Management Development InstituteHal Guthrie, Hal Guthrie and Associates, Inc.Ronald H. Heck, University of HawaiiDianne Lane, Southeast Center for Effective SchoolsLawrence W. Lezotte, Effective Schools Products, Ltd.Judith March, Effective Resources Associates, Inc.Jerry Mathews, Mississippi State UniversityT. C. Mattocks, Bellingham Public Schools (Massachusetts)Deborah McDonald, International Center for Effective SchoolsSteve Nelson, Northwest Regional Educational LaboratoryWilliam A. Owings, Old Dominion UniversityJohn Pisapia, Florida Atlantic UniversityRobert E. Sudlow, Association for Effective Schools, Inc.John Steffens, University of OklahomaM. Donald Thomas, School Management Study GroupLarry Vandel, Vandel and Associates


Journal for Effective Schools


SUBMISSION DEADLINE for the Fall 2008 Issue:July 1, 2008.

Detailed information concerning the submission of manuscripts can be found on the Internet at http://icee.isu.edu

Articles for potential publication in the Journal for Effective Schoolsmay be submitted on an on-going basis to:

Susan Jenkins, Associate EditorJournal for Effective Schools

Intermountain Center for Effective SchoolsIdaho State University

921 South 8th Avenue, Stop 8019Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8019

Call for A

rticles

Fall 2008 Issue

1

Volume 7, Number 1 Spring 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Aim and Scope - Correlates of Effective Schools ...................................................................................... 2

In This Issue...................................................................................................................................................... 3William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan

Dedication ............................................................................................................................................5William A. Owings

Articles

Merit and Achievement in the Post-Modern World..............................................................................7 Allan Ornstein

Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools ..........16William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan

The Effective Schools Correlate - Instructional Leadership: San Diego's Application........................36John J. Marshak

Using Effective Schools Research to Promote Culturally Competent Leadership Practice ................46Karen S. Crum and Whitney H. Sherman

Internships: Building Contextual Relevancy for Improved Instruction................................................62William G. Cunningham and Whitney H. Sherman

Book Review

Class Counts: Education, Inequality, and the Shrinking Middle ClassAuthor - Allan Ornstein ................................................................................................................74

William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan


2

AIM and SCOPE

The Journal for Effective Schools publishes original contributions in the following areas:●● Research Practice __ Empirical studies focusing on the results of applied educational research specif-

ically related to the Effective Schools Process.●● Educational Practices __ Descriptions of the use of the Effective Schools Process in classrooms, schools,

and school districts to include instructional effectiveness, evaluation, leadership, and policy andgovernance.

●● Preparation of Educational Personnel __ Research and practice related to the initial and advancedpreparation of teachers, administrators, and other school personnel including staff developmentpractices based on the Effective Schools Process.

●● Other __ Scholarly reviews of research, book reviews, and other topics of interest to educators seekinginformation on the Effective Schools Process.

CORRELATES OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS

●● A clearly stated and focused mission on learning for all __ The group (faculty, administration,parents) shares an understanding of and a commitment to the instructional goals, priorities, assess-ment, procedures, and personal and group accountability. Their focus is always, unequivocally, on thestudent.

●● A safe and orderly environment for learning __ The school provides a purposeful, equitable, busi-nesslike atmosphere that encourages, supports, allows mistakes, and is free of fear. School is aplace that does no harm to developing psyches and spirits.

●● Uncompromising commitment to high expectations for all __ Those who are leaders empower oth-ers to become leaders who believe and demonstrate that all students can attain mastery of essentialskills. This commitment is shared by professionals who hold high expectations of themselves.

●● Instructional leadership __ Although initially coming from the principal, teacher, or administrator,the goal is to include all participants as instructional leaders as their knowledge expands as a resultof staff development. New insights excite and inspire. In the accountable learning community,everyone is a student and all can be leaders.

●● Opportunity to learn is paramount __ Time is allocated for specific and free-choice tasks. Studentstake part in making decisions about goals and tasks.

●● Frequent monitoring of progress __ Effective schools evaluate the skills and achievements of all stu-dents and teachers. No intimidation is implied. Rather, monitoring often is individualized, withimprovement in learning as the goal.

●● Enhanced communication __ Includes home, school, and community coming together as partners inlearning for all.

* Adapted from Phi Delta Kappa International

3


In This Issue

William Owings and Leslie KaplanGuest Editors

The Spring 2008 issue of the Journal for Effective Schools (JES) marks a significant change as GeneDavis, Executive Editor since 2002, retired in December 2007. This issue is dedicated to theleadership and sheparding he has provided to this Journal and to the Effective Schools movement.

Typically, JES has placed articles alphabetically by the lead author's name. This issue departs fromthat tradition to allow the accepted articles' natural segue and flow to build a coherent theme. Westart with a dedication to Gene Davis and his impact on this Journal and on education at large. Next,Allan Ornstein presents a thought-provoking essay based on his latest book, Class Counts:Education, Inequality, and the Shrinking Middle Class. Ornstein's essay, Merit and Achievement inthe Post-Modern World, compels readers to reflect on the implications of the widening gaps in wealthand opportunity in the nation's schools. As Ornstein writes, "Part of the search for balance (orfairness) is to adopt an uncompromising commitment to produce more effective schools inlower-class communities." This thought takes us back to the genesis of the Effective Schools outlierstudies.

The second article by William Owings and Leslie Kaplan, Research on Effective Schools Correlates:A Summary and Application for Public Schools, provides a focused overview of research supportingthe seven Effective Schools Correlates identified on the JES website and how the research can betranslated into effective schoolhouse practice. A more detailed monograph on this subject, EffectiveSchools Movement: History, Analysis, and Applications, is available through the JES website.

Next, John Marshak reviews the research behind San Diego's efforts to enhance instructionalleadership for systemic change. San Diego presents a clear example of a school system's concertedendeavor to transform how school leadership impacts classroom instruction and student achievement.Reviewing this school district's efforts embodies virtually all of the Effective Schools Correlates.

No one doubts that schools have become more diverse since Ron Edmonds, Larry Lezotte, andRichard Brookover began writing about the Effective Schools process. With the demand for schoolsto make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) comes the challenge of meeting diversity issues success-fully. Culturally competent leadership requires serious and immediate attention from schoolsand educational leadership programs. Karen Crum and Whitney Sherman's article, Using EffectiveSchools Research to Promote Culturally Competent Leadership Practice, addresses these issues well.

William Cunningham and Whitney Sherman's article, Internships: Building Contextual Relevancy forImproved Instruction, builds an excellent case for the importance of practical experiences woventhrough the internship during leadership development. It calls for even greater authenticity andconnection of theory to practice grounded in the Effective Schools tenets.

William Owings and Leslie Kaplan


In This Issue

4

Finally, the Spring issue comes full circle with a book review of Allan Ornstein's book, Class Counts:Education, Inequality, and the Shrinking Middle Class, from which he derived this issue's firstarticle. Ornstein maintains that education may no longer be the "great equalizer." He energeticallyand persuasively argues that given today's economic and social realities, public schools may nolonger provide talented, motivated, and hardworking students with knowledge and social mobilityessential to overcome poverty. Effective schools are proactive in meeting student needs. The earliestEffective Schools studies examined high achieving schools with high-needs populations. Ornstein'sbook, its provocative thesis and overwhelming data, should be a required discussion topic in facultymeetings and university classrooms if schools are to be truly effective in meeting the needs ofincreasingly disenfranchised and high-needs students.

Good reading!

5


William Owings

Dedication

William OwingsGuest Editor

This issue of the Journal for Effective Schools is dedicated to Dr. E. E. (Gene) Davis, theJournal's founding editor. Gene is a practitioner and an academic−−a rare commodity today.From a practitioner standpoint, Gene is a former district superintendent of two large schooldistricts in Alaska and Virginia, ranging in size from 36,000-48,000 students. During hissuperintendent tenures, these districts received the American Association of SchoolAdministrators (AASA) Leadership for Learning Award, the NEA School Bell Award, and theGolden Medallion Award for the National Public Relations Association. Davis has personallybeen recognized with the ACT-SO Award from the NAACP; the Eaton Award, the highest awardgiven in Idaho for excellence in Idaho economic education; and the United Way Gold Award.Wal-Mart also honored him with a literacy grant for educators who are providing outstandingservice in literacy.

From an academic perspective, since 1992, Davis served as a professor in the GraduateDepartment of Educational Leadership and Instructional Design in the College of Education atIdaho State University (ISU) where he taught doctoral level courses preparing principals,supervisors, and superintendents for leadership in education. He also served as the Director ofthe Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness (ICEE) at ISU. The ICEE works withschools and school districts in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana. School districts partnerwith the ICEE, collaborating on such issues as the Effective Schools Process, staff developmentfor improved student achievement, leadership and school board development, instructionalaudits, and long-range planning.

Davis has been a presenter at national, regional, and state conferences on such topics as:Characteristics of High-Performing School Districts, Leadership That Makes a Difference,Auditing for School/District Effectiveness, Long-Range Facility Planning, Strategic Thinkingfor Strategic Direction, and Good-to-Great School Boards.

He has written two Phi Delta Kappa Fastbacks with M. Donald Thomas; edited a book on lead-ership and change published in February 2006; and is CEO of the School Management StudyGroup, a national education consulting firm. Davis has served as a trainer for the United StatesAir University and NOVA University.

Davis currently serves on three national advisory groups: The National Research Center onRural Education Support (NRCRES), a federally funded grant organization housed at theUniversity of North Carolina and partnered with Pennsylvania State University, whose goal isto provide support for rural schools nationwide; the National School Development Council(NSDC) based in Massachusetts; and the National Rural Education Association (NREA), oneof the most important voices for rural education based at the University of Oklahoma.


Dedication

6

Davis served as the founding Executive Editor of the Journal for Effective Schools, a nationallyrefereed scholarly journal that focuses on research, policy, and practice of Effective Schools from2002 until his retirement in December 2007. Currently, he is a consultant for Learning Keys, aneducational services company specializing in comprehensive school improvement to ensure studentachievement.

Gene's contributions in education have been profound, and we wish him all the best in his newendeavors. Thank you, Gene, for so many years of dedicated, quality service in education and forseeing the need for a professional journal dedicated to the research behind the Effective SchoolsMovement.

7


Allen Ornstein

Merit and Achievement in the Post-Modern World

Allan OrnsteinSt. John's University

Abstract

This article is based on the author's recent book, Class Counts: Education, Inequality, and theShrinking of the Middle Class. The book examines the (1) growing inequality in American, (2)struggling and shrinking middle class, (3) Nation's slow economic decline, (4) erosion of theAmerican dream, (5) inability of schools and colleges to overcome current gaps in income andwealth, and (6) decline of meritocracy in the midst of scientific and technical jobs increasinglyoutsourced to Asia and Eastern Europe. The article reflects some of the overall issues of the book.More about the book can be found in the book review at the end of this Journal issue.

Americans are a nation on the make. Democracyhas unleashed the energies of its entire people,and with this new energy comes the dissolutionor a stratified society. According to McDougall(2004), we are con artists and cowboys anddreamers and inventors, not because we are adifferent breed of species or better or worse thanother nations, but because Americans haveenjoyed immense opportunity to pursue ambi-tions and dreams. On the positive side, thesedistinctions have helped Americans to have faithin themselves−−to win the West, to innovate, toexpand and make it big−−not being fixed by OldWorld church or state hierarchies and social orclass distinctions that hold people in place andconstrain innovative spirit and energies, as inmost parts of the world.

As a new culture and society, the humblest andpoorest have been able to lift up their heads andface the future with confidence; education hasincreasingly been relied on as an integral part ofthis process of becoming. On the negative side,this forceful, driving, and imaginative Americancharacteristic has led to political excesses andabuses−−nearly wiping out whole civilizations andextracting land from other people and places in orderto further and/or protect American interests. It hasalso produced some ghastly business ethics−−based

on greed and creative corruption−−highlighted bythe Gilded Age, the Wall Street collapse in the1930's, the dot-com bust and ethics of Enron inpost-2000, and the current sub-prime bank fiasco.

Although some observers might criticize theAmerican character, and comment about flaws andfailures, McDougall (2004) and others (Felring,2003; Price, 2003) maintain that the formation ofthe United States is the central event of the past400 years. Imagine some ship flying the Dutch,English, or French flag in the year 1600 and thenbeing transported to the present. The differencewould astound them. From a primitive andvacant land, America has become the mightiest,richest, most dynamic civilization in history,exceeding the achievements of not only theEuropean world but also the entire world.America is perhaps the most revolutionarycountry, a society that is constantly changing andreforming and revitalizing itself. To paraphraseJoseph Perkins, a famous Harvard orator in 1797,we are the Athens and Rome of our age, and untilrecently the admiration of the world.

Geography and Smart Thinking

On a global, much more theoretical level, growthand prosperity among cultures and civilizations



8

can be explained by environment, or by limits ofgeographical isolation. Given a make-believeworld in which every individual has identicalgenetic potential, there would still be largedifferences in education, skills, and relatedoccupations and productivity among peoplebecause of demographic differences that overcenturies shape human behavior and attitudes.

For Sowell (1998), the conservative economist,nothing so much conflicts with desire for equalityas geography; it is the physical setting−−reflectedby large bodies of water, deserts, mountains,forests−−in which civilizations, nations, races,and ethnic groups have evolved and in turn pro-duced different cultures. Put simply, the peopleof the Himalayas have not had equal opportunityto acquire seafaring skills, and the Eskimos didnot have equal opportunity to learn how to farmor grow oranges. Too often the influence ofgeography is assessed in terms of naturalresources that directly impact national wealth.But geography also influences cultural differ-ences and cognitive thinking, by either expandingor limiting the universe of ideas and inventionsavailable to different people.

When geography isolates people, say by moun-tains, a desert, or a small island, the peoplehave limited contact with the outside world and,subsequently, technological and innovativeadvancement is limited. While the rest of theworld trades skills, ideas, and values from alarger cultural pool, isolated people are limitedby their own resources and what knowledge theyhave developed by themselves. Very fewadvances come from isolated cultures, and thosethat do are usually modified and improved bypeople that have learned to assimilate and adoptnew ideas from other cultures. Until 9/11, theUnited States had the advantage of geographicalisolation and protection. This isolation did nothinder national progress because of the largeinflux of immigrants from around the world who

not only brought meager possessions to ourshores, but also ideas, values, and aspirations.

England, France, Portugal, Spain, and theNetherlands were tiny countries, compared toChina and India, but the Europeans traveled thenavigable waterways of their continent as well asthe Atlantic. They came in contact with manyother countries and civilizations, including SouthAmerica, Africa, Egypt, Turkey, India, China,Japan−−and thus gained from this knowledge.But the older civilizations (which were oncemore advanced, but isolated) were overtakenand conquered by the smaller countries that hadexpanded their knowledge base.

Once Japan broke from its isolation, it becameone of today's economic powers, and a compa-rable process is now shaping China and India.Similarly, the rise of the United States−−inparticular our skills, technology, innovations,and economic advances−−is based on the historyof immigrants, people coming from all parts ofthe world, melting together, and exchangingknowledge and ideas. It is this constant flow ofdifferent people from different parts of the globethat helps create an American entrepreneurialspirit and sense of innovation and creativity notenjoyed in more static, less dynamic countries.The first generation of immigrants may not scorehigh on standardized reading tests, because oflanguage differences, but intellectual resources,hard work, and sweat have spearheaded much ofthis country's industrial machinery and muscle inthe twentieth century and much of our high-techinformation in the twenty-first century.

Murray (2004) introduced a different twist to therecord of human history and why Westernnations have advanced more rapidly than othercivilizations. Murray was coauthor of The BellCurve in 1994, which relied on statistical data tomake a case for innate and inherited intelligenceas the crucial factor for success in society and the

9


Allen Ornstein

reason why different racial and ethnic groupsthink differently (some are more verbal, mathe-matical, or abstract). In the author's new book tenyears later, he ranked geniuses throughout theages (the last three thousand years). He identified4,002 influential scientists and artists using amethod which he claimed allowed individualsfrom numerous fields and different cultures to beranked.

Murray (2004) concluded that the Westernculture has contributed most to the arts andsciences. What the human condition is today, andwhat human species have accomplished, islargely due to people who hail from WesternEurope in a half-dozen centuries. Sure to fire upthe critics, as he did with his earlier book, hemakes it clear that White males have been morecreative and innovative than minorities andwomen. Whereas many people consider scienceand religion to be in opposition, he argues thatcultures girded by Christianity have been moreproductive than cultures bolstered by otherreligions.

Among the top-ranked, most creative, innovative,and influential people, according to Murray(2004), are Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein insciences and Aristotle, Plato, and Confucius inphilosophy. Michelangelo is the greatest artistand Shakespeare is the greatest writer. Murraymarvels that these conclusions coincide withcurrent opinion. Bombast and pompous thinkingcomes easy to Murray. He asserts the peoplemust be right because his research gives them(not him) face validity. Murray cares little aboutopinion, or whether history or philosophy agreeswith these conclusions, because his analysis isbased on quantifiable methods and the opinionsof others are based on qualitative thought. Bythe thunderous force of his ego, he dismisseshis critics in advance as reflecting politicalcorrectness, trendy relativism, and postmodernistor antiestablishment beliefs. On the other hand,

Murray claims he has science and researchprocedures on his side, and any other position isbogus.

Allow me a short aside. If one were a bettingman and had been asked to choose in themedieval period which part of the world woulddominate the others in knowledge and the arts formuch of the coming millenniums, one wouldmost likely have put their money on the Islamworld−−not Western Europe. The leading sci-entists, mathematicians, and intellectuals camefrom this part of the world, and it was the Islamicworld that created the first global market, linkingEurope with Asia through trade. How Europeand America rose to preeminence after theMiddle Ages is for many historians andphilosophers a puzzle. Some say it had some-thing to do with the birth of the Renaissance;others refer to the Enlightenment and Age ofReason. McNeill (1963), professor of history atthe University of Chicago, credited Europe'sascent to its warlike prowess, navigational skills,and resistance to disease.

Stark (2006), a Catholic historian, argued the riseof the West is linked to the spread of Christianity,with its emphasis on preserving manuscripts andembracing intellect and reason in advancing thefaith. Whereas other religions looked to the pastfor spiritual guidance, Christianity looked to thefuture in the coming of the Messiah and thus wasmore progressive. In Thomistic Roman Catholictheology, faith and reason are complimentaryand support each other.

The suggestion that Christianity is built on reasonand is based on a progressive interpretation ofthe scriptures and/or open to competing views isconsidered a fairy tale by many social scientists.But Murray (2004) also associated the West's riseto global dominance with Christianity, as well asits people having a respect for science, technology,and invention. For the last five or six centuries,



10

the West has cornered the market in knowledgeand the arts because of its intellect and openmind and because its thoughts have had a rela-tion to reality−−not faith or Zen−−and rejected arigid ideology. He also argued (as others have)that Christian doctrine allied itself to Greek andRoman art and philosophy. But it is hard not tosense Murray's patrician and elitist background,as his interpretation of the world order is linkedto Social Darwinism: Certain people are smarterthan others and thus will rise to the top of theladder, and certain societies are more adaptivethan others and thus will grow and prosper morethan others, while their counterparts falter ordecline.

And now for the bad news! Murray (2004)warned that the West has peaked. It has lost itsvitality and benchmark for history's highestachievers. A champion of excellence, he assertedthat in a few hundred years from now, we will beexplaining why the locus of great humanaccomplishment is now located in a completelydifferent part of the world. Sadly, I don't think wewill have to wait that long−−not if the internationaltest scores in science and math achievement thatcompare U.S. students to industrialized counter-parts in Europe and Asia are any barometer of thefuture, and not if the fact that China and Indiaeach graduate four to one more scientists andengineers than the United States is an indicator oftomorrow's innovation and invention. The fact is,more than 25 percent of the K-12 student popu-lation in the United States is considered poor, andthe country is often unable to provide them witha safe and orderly environment for learning.

The new wave of scientific and technologicalknowledge will come from Asia, given existingeducation and economic trends, coupled withmany stories in news magazines such asEconomist and Business Week and in news-papers such as Financial Times and New YorkTimes. There is a shift in brain power from the

East to the West, commonly called brain drain,as foreign students leave the U.S., or decline toattend, first-rate American institutions of higherlearning and follow the lure of economic oppor-tunity, slowing down in the West and routed backto the East.

Not only has the number of foreign students'enrollments in U.S. colleges and universitiesdropped since 9/11, down from 583,000 to565,000, but fewer students are opting to come tothe United States, even after being accepted. Inthe meantime, between 2003 and 2004, thenumber of students from China and India (thelargest source of U.S. foreign students, totaling25 percent of all foreign students in 2004-2005)has declined because of improved economiesand opportunities in these two countries. To becandid, the United States is losing its competitiveedge, as most of the aforementioned studentswere enrolled in science, math, and technologicalfields and then remained in the United States.

The next book on the best and brightest is boundto profile an increasing number of scientists,engineers, and knowledge producers from thenon-Western world, with hundreds of hard topronounce names from China and India, andeven from Japan, South Korea, and Thailand.Unless some idiosyncratic quirk occurs, Americaand its European cousins will lose inventive andinnovative ground to the East, based on theworld's increased production of scientists andengineers now coming from Asia.

The more graduate students in science andengineering that the United States attracts fromAsia, the larger the pool of human capital thatmay wind up in Silicon Valley, North Carolina'sgolden triangle, and other high tech and inno-vative centers. Brain workers migrate to brainworking centers. What the United States needs todo is to maintain the flow of brain drain fromother countries by creating an immigration

11


Allen Ornstein

policy that slashes the influx of unskilledimmigrants and rewards human capital with apoint-system modeled after Canada andAustralia. Given the rapid increase in global-ization, brain-based jobs are highly mobile. U.S.immigration policies must attract innovative andtechnological talent, not repel it by making itdifficult to obtain student visas or science/engineering job visas. In making immigrationlaws, the U.S. Congress tends to cater to bigbusiness' demand for cheap labor to fill the ranksof agribusiness, hotel and restaurant industries,and sweatshop manufacturing, while short-changing high-tech, high-wage industries andignoring the economic advantages of humancapital.

The Growth of Knowledge

New knowledge in the United States doublesabout every fifteen or twenty years. In manythird-world countries the mule and horse are themain modes of transportation, and the localeconomy is mainly picking berries, draggingbanana trees to market, or having children cleanout goat intestines that can be turned into leather.This is the real China, India, Myanmar (formerlyBurma), Pakistan, and the African continent−−the rural hinterland−−possibly representative ofnearly two-thirds of the world, which Americanstudents and teachers cannot fathom. This is notto deny these countries don't have a corporatementality and a class of people that remind us ofboth old-fashioned industrialists and a new brandof technocrats who are versed in computersoftware, media, and other high-tech andelectronic ventures.

What is less clear is the extent to which this neweconomic growth and human capital tricklesdown to the global masses who live in poverty,both in the countryside, far away from the neweconomy which deals with the exchange ofknowledge and ideas, and in urban squalor,

where old and new knowledge, ideas, and valuescollide: East meets West and high-tech meets low-tech, causing a great cultural rift and the makingsof revolution. Here old catchphrases are envi-sioned that divide people into winners and losers,societies of widening disparities, much worsethan the United States because of governmentcorruption and a lack of fair laws. It is called thegap between rich and poor. Asians and Africanscall it light and darkness. Call it what you want.Extreme disparities and huge inequities hindermobility around the world.

For two thousand years, before the invention ofrailroads, trucks, and airplanes, water was thekey for traveling and exploring. Up to the 1850s,it was faster and cheaper to travel by water fromSan Francisco to China than overland toChicago. The Europeans, since the Viking era,understood that geographical isolation could beovercome by the sea or ocean, and, given theircapitalistic and conquering zeal and attitudes ofsuperiority, they went out and traded with, andalso colonized, other peoples and other cultures.Subsequently, industrial and technologicaladvances were made by adopting and modifyingthe ideas of other civilizations.

Anyone familiar with New York City, Chicago,or Los Angeles understands these cities housepeople from a vast assortment of countries withdifferent knowledge, ideas, and values. The oldpatrician class has always disrespected anddiscriminated against these people, but the questfor economic opportunity and the dynamicfactors that drove the great numbers of thesepeople to migrate to America have managed toovercome some of the patrician forces, customs,and laws that have tried to stifle newcomerslanding in these cities. Far from celebrating theirparticular identities, most urban dwellers havecontact with different people and become morehip, sophisticated, and/or cosmopolitan than theirnonurban counterparts. Even kids who come



12

from the backwaters of the world, say from therice paddies of Vietnam or the mountains ofMontenegro, quickly become enculturated intothe American environment, especially if theysettle in large cities and they step out of theirparents' cultural and historical isolation. Thecomputer and cell phone may increase ourability to communicate with people from aroundthe world, but there is still a limitation onexposure to new thoughts without actual contactwith different people.

Thinking in America is shaped not only by one'shome environment and community but also bythe diverse people with which one comes incontact, who reshape and expand thinking andimagination. Those who come in contact withpeople from around the world assimilate moreinformation that those who remain trapped inurban ghettos, rural villages, mountains, orislands. To be sure, one can live in most parts ofNebraska and Wyoming, safe from people whohave funny-sounding names, different customs,and strange folklore, but that person is not goingto have the same opportunity to expand thinkingand creative juices. If, on the other hand, onelives life in a melting pot area, that person willmore likely be tolerant, pursue novel ideas, andresist large-scale bureaucracy, production lines,and routine jobs. Enhanced communicationamong people is not only important at the schoollevel, but also at the community level; and farmore effective in an environment where peopleof different cultures trade ideas and learn fromeach other. The point is that human creativity isthe ultimate economic resource and link tonational wealth. The chances are, also, that thecreative mind will raise productivity, earn moremoney, and enjoy his or her job compared to aclose-minded individual who is insulated fromdifferent people with different ideas and differentways of thinking−−and works on an assemblyline and performs routine tasks.

A Change in Meritocracy

The phrase postindustrial society, coined byHarvard's Bell (1973), described the scientific-technological societies evolving in developedcountries in the second half of the twentieth cen-tury. The singular feature of this society is theimportance of scientific and technical knowledgeas the source of production, innovation, andpolicy formulation. Emerging from the oldereconomic systems in both advanced capitalisticand socialistic countries is a knowledge societybased on preeminence of professionals andmanagers. In the United States during the 1950sand 1960s, Bell noted, "this group outpaced…allothers in rate of growth, which was…seventimes more than the overall rate for workers" (p.108). In the 1990s, computer and high-techsectors outpaced the entire economy, reflectedby a soaring NASDAQ market whose bubbleburst in 2000. Nonetheless, the stratificationstructure of this new society produced a highly-trained, knowledge-based elite, which issupported by a large scientific and technicalstaff and which has become the economic enginefor the new century. Moreover, it is only the partof society that has successfully competed withthe patrician (super-rich) society, at least up tothe point where the blue bloods have taken noticeof who is being admitted into Harvard and whois working on Wall Street.

The basis of achievement in the postindustrialsociety is education and high academic expec-tations. Merit and differentials in status, power,and income are awarded to highly-educated andtrained experts with credentials; they are seen asthe decision makers who will inherit the powerstructure in business, government, and evenpolitics. Achievement and mobility are alsorelated to entrepreneurship and the risk taking:what Ben Franklin would call hard work andMerrill Lynch or Forbes magazine might call

13


Allen Ornstein

making money the old-fashioned way. Fussell,(1983) a University of Pennsylvania sociologist,labeled these postindustrial knowledge workersas the X class. C. Wright Mills, as cited inFussell, said the middle-class person was alwayssomebody's man, whereas the X person isnobody's. X people are highly independent, edu-cated, and achievement oriented; who viewretirement as meaningful only to hired personnelor wage slaves who hate hard work.

This trend toward a meritocracy of the intellectualelite has aggravated inequalities. The majority ofpeople in a democratic society accept this formof inequality, because it is based on individualtalent and achievement−−not inherited privilegeor rank−−and because this form of meritocracy isdesigned, at least in theory, to benefit the commongood. Because of socioeconomic deprivation andlimited education, poor and minority groups areunable to compete successfully in a society basedon educational credentials and educationalachievement. Without the appropriate certificates,they are not needed by the economy; not nec-essarily exploited, but underpaid for theirservices; not necessarily discriminated against,but not in demand.

An achievement-oriented society based onacademic credentials and standardized tests(which compare individuals in relation to a groupscore, say on IQ, achievement, or aptitude)condemns many people who cannot compete onan intellectual or cognitive level to the low endof the stratification structure. It is the classicproblem: the rich (who have more resources forbetter education) get richer and the poor getpoorer−−and gaps between the haves and havenots have dramatically increased in the lastdecade. Put in more precise terms, for the lasttwenty or twenty-five years, one-fifth of thepopulation (on the income pyramid) has beenimproving its prospects while the remaining 80percent has lagged behind. With the Bush

administration, it is the top 10 percent that hasglommed almost all of the economic growthbecause of increased globalization, Wall Streetgreed and corruption, and free-market economicpolicies, which create unstable conditions forworking- and middle-class people. Surprisingly,no one has rebelled. The majority have notimposed higher taxes on the wealthy; in fact,the opposite has occurred, partially because con-servative forces since the Nixon administrationhave dominated the White House and Congress.

In education terms, however, what counts todayis how the government spends money onintellectual capital−−federal support of schools,college scholarships, and retraining of labor.Human capital (educated and credentialedprofessionals and business people) is the key forcreating economic capital. Should AlexanderHamilton's mob be educated (his view of thecommon people); and to what extent? In the finalanalysis, human capital (Thomas Jefferson'sposition) is more important than economiccapital (Hamilton's position) if democracy is tosurvive and if the country is going to continue toprosper. The irony is, however, inequality isexacerbated by the rise of human capital, that is,by an increase of knowledge workers. Inequalityis greater in cities such as New York, Boston, andLos Angeles because knowledge workers easilyfind work in these cities and earn considerablymore than people who engage in routine tasks orlow-tech and low-end jobs. But the other side ofthe coin is that they contribute more to societyand therefore deserve to be paid more. In simpleeconomic terms, how much more can we raisethe salary of an expert janitor−−$1 per hour, $2per hour? Consider the janitor's raise vis-à-visthe raise for an expert computer programmer,scientist, or attorney.

Americans now produce fewer and fewerproducts; however, we produce intellectualproperty (i.e. pharmaceutical research, computer

chips, software, etc.) which has dramaticallyincreased the nation's innovative, information,and high-tech economy. This type of intellectualcapital has led to millions of new jobs, the mostimportant reason for focusing on human capital.Bill Gates, who blends Jefferson's politicswith Hamilton's economics, is critical of thenation for rationing education on wealthy andsuburban children at the expense of low-incomeand urban children. Gates has personally com-mitted $1.2 billion for high school reform thatwould ensure that all students receive a collegeprep curriculum (Toppo, 2004).

Will the efforts of Bill Gates and other reformershelp achieve a more meritorious society? Peopleare human, complicated by a host of flawsincluding greed and arrogance. If those whoadvance come to believe they have achieved eco-nomic success on their own merits, they maycome to believe they are entitled to what theyget−−and the hell with stupid, slow, or lazy people.According to Young (2001), the English scholar,those who rise in a meritorious society canbecome smug, just as smug, if I may add, aspeople who were born on the more fortunate sideof the economic divide and used their parents'economic resources and social connections torise up the ladder of success. The newcomers towealth, the academic elite, may actually come tobelieve they have morality and justice on theirside.

A new form of arrogance can develop by thecreation of meritocracy, by the same people whoonce believed in and exemplified the politicaltheories of Jeffersonian democracy and thestories of Horatio Alger. If true merit becomesassociated with heredity or innate ability, as itoften is construed, as opposed to the notion ofopportunity, then meritocracy becomes less ofa virtue and more of a propaganda tool forpatricians and conservatives to wave and useagainst the populace who have fewer opportunitiesbecause of their social and economic status.

In a society that prizes merit and achievement,the reward structure is linked to a person'snatural ability. In The Rise of Meritocracy,Young (1958) warned that such a society wouldput most of its resources in effective programsand schools that favored the academic elite, thuspushing the gifted and talented to the top and theless gifted and talented behind. Even worse, theprocess would continue over generations becauseof the assertive and class-based mating and thecomponent of heredity, which people in ademocracy prefer not to discuss because of itsracial implications. Both bright and slow stu-dents and adults will continue to compete inschool and society, partially fortified by classdistinctions (environment) and heredity. Barringdrastic government policies, the search for meritand achievement will move capable people to thetop and less capable people to the bottom.Although some say this is the most ideal society,as it gives everyone the chance to rise to the top,it has serious implications for average and dullpeople, and with people who have fewer oppor-tunities because of class. If left unchecked orunregulated, it leads to increasing inequality, andultimately where one group feels they belong toanother species−−very high or very low.

Trying to figure out the interactions of envi-ronment and heredity is a hopeless policy issue,rather the crux of the problem is to deal with thedisadvantages of a limited environment becauseof class factors that twist and deform the spiritand lead to the plight of the next generation.Ideally, a balance should be found, someentitlement or safety net, that protects the lowerclasses and that children and parents of variousabilities and talents can accept. The issue can beexemplified in reverse−−the recent period whichde-emphasized programs for the talented andgifted, due to pressure to create heterogeneousclassrooms with a wide range of academicabilities, and in the passage of affirmative actionlegislation. Part of the search for balance orfairness is to adopt an uncompromising

14



Spring 2008

15

Volume 7, Number 1

Allen Ornstein

commitment to produce more effective schoolsin lower-class communities.

There is no set of recommendations that canplease the entire American populace. Perhapssomeone in a little cabaret in South Texas (aJohnny Cash jingo) or a coffee shop in Hoboken,New Jersey (a Philip Roth location) or a churchin Yoknapatawpha County (William Faulkner'sfictional but real place) can figure out a solution,as our leaders and statesmen cannot come to aconsensus, and instead regularly engage innegative nabobs of negativism. All that can behoped for is some balance−−some sense offairness in the search for talent and in the rewardsystem that compromises society, and somesense of fairness in the distribution of wealth.

References

Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society. New York, NY: Basic.

Felring, J. (2003). A leap in the dark: The struggle to create the American Republic. New York. NY: Oxford University Press.

Fussell, P. (1983). Class: A guide through the American status system. New York, NY: Summit.

McDougall, W. A. (2004). Freedom just around the corner. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

McNeil, W. H. (1963). The rise of the west. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Murray, C. (2004). Human accomplishment: The pursuit of excellence in the arts and sciences. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Perkins, J. (1997, July 19). An oration upon genius. Pronounced at Harvard University. Harvard University, Boston, MA.

Price, D. A. (2003). Love and hate in Jamestown. New York, NY: Knopf.

Sowell, T. (1998). Conquests and cultures: An international history. New York, NY: Basic.

Sowell, T. (1998, October 5). Race, culture and equality. Forbes, 144-49.

Stark, R. (2006). The victory of reason: How Christianity led to freedom, capitalism, and western success. New York, NY: Random House.

Toppo, G. (2004, February 28). Groups call for comprehensive reform for U.S. high schools.USA Today.

Young, M. (1958). The rise of meritocracy, 1870-2033. London, UK: Thames and Hudson.

Young, M. (2001, June 29). Down with meritocracy! Guardian.

Allan Ornstein is a professor of Education at St.John's University in New York. He is the authorof more than 55 books and 400 articles andresearch papers in the areas of social foundations,social policy, and curriculum.

This article is adapted from Allan Ornstein's text,Class Counts: Education, Inequality, and theShrinking Middle Class, Rowman & Littlefield,2007.

Spring 2008

16

Volume 7, Number 1


Research on Effective Schools Correlates:A Summary and Application for Public Schools

William A. OwingsOld Dominion University

Leslie S. KaplanNewport News, Virginia

Abstract

What is the Effective Schools literature, and what does the research say about effective practices?This article reviews the origins of the Effective Schools Research; discusses why some believe thatschools can not overcome achievement gaps in student learning; and provides an overview of theresearch supporting the Effective Schools Correlates.

The Report That Started it All

In July, 1966, Coleman published Equality ofEducational Opportunity, commonly referred toas the Coleman Report (Coleman et al., 1966).The authors concluded family background, notthe school, was the major determinant of studentachievement and life outcomes. "Schools bringlittle influence to bear on a child's achievementthat is independent of his background andgeneral social context. This very lack of anindependent effect means that the inequalitiesimposed on children by their home, neighborhood,and peer environment are carried along tobecome the inequalities with which they confrontadult life at the end of school" (p. 325).Coleman's findings suggested that children frompoor families and homes lacking the primeconditions or values to support education couldnot learn a rigorous curriculum, regardless ofwhat the school did. These findings createdconsiderable controversy.

They also had a profound political and policyinfluence on public schooling. The ColemanReport made schools appear unable to overcomeor equalize the disparity in student academicachievement due to environmental factors and

encouraged the idea that school differences hadlittle relationship to student achievement. Onewell-publicized finding was that schoolsaccounted for about 10 percent of the variance inschool achievement, while student backgroundcharacteristics accounted for the other 90 percent(Madaus, Airasian, & Kellaghan, 1980).

Likewise, Jencks (1972), a Harvard Universityprofessor of social policy, and colleaguescorroborated Coleman's findings. In Inequality:A Reassessment of the Effects of Family andSchooling in America, Jencks reanalyzedColeman's data and concluded that the schools'influence was marginal. Jencks surmised thatschools did little to lessen the gap between richand poor students or between more and less ablestudents. Achievement primarily reflected thestudents' background. Further, little evidenceexisted that educational reform would improveschool influence on student achievement. Aschool's output, Jencks concluded, dependsalmost entirely on the entering children's charac-teristics. "Everything else−−the school budget,its policies, the characteristics of the teachers−−iseither secondary or completely irrelevant"(Jencks, pp. 255-256).

Coleman and Jencks affirmed the statistical cor-relations between socioeconomic status andschool achievement. They found that the higher afamily's socioeconomic status, the better thechildren's school achievement. While theresearch and its reevaluation brought additionaldata to light that undercut the original conclu-sions, the initial reports' misleading but highlypublicized first impression remained. Mostpeople only remembered that schools could notovercome family background. As a result, thebelief that for academic achievement, "familiesmatter and schools don't" has become part ofpopular culture. In fact, "many public schooleducators have uncritically accepted the hypo-thesis of familial effects, along with its corollary:that teachers cannot be held accountable forstudents' failure to learn when the students comefrom poor home environments" (Orlich, 1989, p.516).

In a similar vein, in 1969, a University ofCalifornia at Berkeley educational psychologyprofessor published a highly controversial article(Jensen, 1969). He argued that a student's IQwas the best single predictor of scholasticachievement, and IQ was largely genetic. Jensenhypothesized that the test score differencesbetween African American and White studentsresulted largely from genetic IQ differences andthat environmental factors had little importance.Jensen's conclusions drew strident criticism frommany members of the academic community andthe public at large.

Coleman, Jencks, and Jensen were among agroup of social scientists during the 1960s and1970s who believed that family factors such aspoverty or a parent's lack of education preventedchildren from learning in school regardless of theteachers' instructional methods or schoolresources. These reports and the related literatureprompted the federal government to create com-pensatory education programs, chiefly through

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary SchoolAct. These programs focused on changing stu-dents' behavior in order to make up for disadvan-taged backgrounds. These programs made noeffort to change schools' behavior.

The Genesis of the Effective Schools Research

This early research prompted an importantreaction. By claiming that schools did not makea difference in predicting student achievement,the Coleman Report stimulated researchers andeducators who believed the opposite−−thateffective schools could make a difference instudent learning regardless of students' familybackgrounds or socioeconomic status. Theselater investigators developed a body of researchthat concluded that schools can help all childrenlearn. Most importantly, they surmised thatschools control the factors needed to assurestudent mastery of the core curriculum. Theyalso noted the family's important role in pro-moting student learning.

To support these positions, several sets ofresearchers launched studies in the late 1970s todemonstrate that schools could be effective.They began to identify public schools whosegraduates scored higher than the national averageon standardized tests. Academic growth, notdecline, characterized these schools. Soon, hun-dreds of studies and research-based analyticpapers tried to identify these school characteristicsor correlates which were unusually successfulwith students regardless of their socioeconomicbackground.

Much of the Effective Schools Research mightinformally be considered as outlier studies(Scheerens & Bosker, 1997). An outlier is astatistical term to identify something that is at thefar end of the distribution. In other words, oneexample of an outlier would be a school with allstudents eligible for free or reduced price lunch

17Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools


Spring 2008

18

Volume 7, Number 1


and extremely high student achievement testscores. These studies identified those schoolsthat stood apart from schools with similar studentsocioeconomic backgrounds in terms of theexpected student achievement. These investiga-tions contained some methodological limitations,however, and small samples and statistical issuesmade results vary widely. Nevertheless, theseoutlier studies clearly showed that effectiveschools are characterized by good discipline, highteacher expectations for student achievement, andeffective administrator leadership (Scheerens &Bosker).

Another school effectiveness study in 1976paired 21 matched California elementary schools.Schools differed only on the student standardizedachievement test scores. Again, the higherachieving inner-city schools had strong principalleadership, higher expectations for studentachievement, an academically focused atmos-phere, and instructional emphasis as essentialinstitutional influencers of pupil performance(Edmonds, 1979). Researchers noted that whilethese characteristics were common to all theimproving schools, they operated and interactedin unique ways in each school (Purkey & Smith,1983).

In perhaps the author's most notable contribution,Edmonds (1982) articulated the five school-levelvariables that are strongly correlated with studentachievement, the five Effective Schools Correlates:

●● Strong administrative leadership with atten-tion to instructional quality

●● High expectations for all student achievement●● A safe and orderly climate conducive to

teaching and learning●● An emphasis on basic skill acquisition ●● Frequent monitoring and measuring of pupil

progress so teachers and principals are con-stantly aware of pupil progress in relationshipto the instructional objectives

Although other researchers proposed somewhatdifferent lists, Edmonds' five Correlates ofEffective Schools became immensely popular.They became the framework for thinking aboutschool effectiveness for at least a decade andprobably longer.

The Effective Schools Correlates andSupporting Research

Further researchers (Scheerens and Bosker,1997) revised and expanded the list of EffectiveSchools Correlates, as noted on the Journal forEffective Schools website. This article willhighlight some of the more rigorous investiga-tions and considerations supporting each of theseCorrelates.

A Clearly Stated and Focused Mission onLearning for All

The group (faculty, administration, parents)shares an understanding of and a commitment tothe instructional goals, priorities, assessment,procedures, and personal and group account-ability. Their focus is always, unequivocally, onthe student.

Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) discussedthe importance of a focused mission as one of theschool leader's responsibilities. The four leader-ship behaviors that are noted in the meta-analysisinclude the following:

●● Establishing concrete goals for curriculum,instruction, and assessment practices in theschool

●● Establishing concrete goals for the functioningof the school

●● Establishing high, concrete goals, and expec-tations that all students will meet them

●● Continually keeping attention on establishedgoals (pp. 50-51)


Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools

19

Numerous school effectiveness research studiesand school improvement program evaluationsshow that consensus on the school's goals andmission is related to improved student achieve-ment and school outcomes (Cohen, 1983;Hallinger & Murphy, 1986; Lee, Bryk, & Smith,1993; Lightfoot, 1983; MacKenzie, 1983; Rutter,Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, & Smith, 1979;Stoll & Fink, 1994; Sun, Creemers, & deJong,2007; Venezky & Winfield, 1979). Research,backing up intuition, indicates that a school'sunity of purpose helps the teachers function as acoherent whole, providing a focused climate forstudent learning.

In a widely cited research article, Hallinger andMurphy (1986) stated that staff in all the effec-tive schools in the study viewed high levels ofstudent achievement as the most important goalor mission. Hallinger and Heck (1998) examinedstudies exploring the principal's direct and indirectcontribution to school effectiveness. They con-cluded that the most consistent findings inEffective Schools Research supported the view thatprincipals' involvement in framing, articulating,and sustaining goals is a significant indirectinfluence on student achievement. Similarly,Lee, Bryk, and Smith (1993) reviewed theEffective Schools Research and report that,"such elements of community as cooperativework, effective communication, and shared goalshave been identified as crucial for all types oforganizations, not just schools" (p. 227).

Other recent research found that while principals'strong instructional leadership is important, itsimpact on school effectiveness is indirect(Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000; Goddard,Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001; Goddard,LoGerfo, & Hoy, 2003). In terms of articulatinga clear and focused vision and goals, the researchappears to show that principal leadership indi-rectly makes a difference in student achievementin three ways (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, &Wahlstrom, 2004; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2005):

●● Setting and communicating direction byenvisioning clear, shared, and understandablecourses of action and goals, generating highperformance standards, and providing feedback about performance to others

●● Developing people by providing educators andothers with the needed support and training

●● Redesigning the school organization by makingit work, ensuring that a wide range of condi-tions and incentives support teaching andlearning

Simply because principals' efforts to influencestudent achievement are not direct, however,does not reduce the importance these contribu-tions make to school effectiveness. Evidencefound that principal leadership is second only toteaching among the school-related factors in itsimpact on student learning (Leithwood et al.,2004). Principals in effective schools concentrateon these behaviors and indirectly enhance studentachievement.

The Education Trust (2005) examined highimpact schools and identified the clearly focusedmission and vision of learning for all. Highimpact was defined as schools that had studentpopulations of at least 60% low income andachieved at higher than expected rates for at leastthree years. Under the heading of "culture," TheEducation Trust (2005) found the following:

●● High-impact schools have consistently higherexpectations for all students, regardless ofstudents' prior academic performance; andprincipals, teachers, and counselors takeresponsibility for helping students succeed.

●● High-impact schools remove barriers to high-level course-taking. Students are encouragedto take on academic challenges. In average-impact schools, policy hurdles stand betweenstudents and access to the most challengingcourses.

●● High-impact schools use assessment data forfuture planning, such as improving curriculum

Spring 2008

20

Volume 7, Number 1


or making teacher assignments. Average-impact schools tend to use data primarily tomeasure past student performance. (p. 3)

The culture of these high impact schools reflectedthe mission of the schools and addressed thatmission in four factors. First, high-impactschools had a mission to prepare students for lifebeyond high school while average-impactschools prepared students for graduation.Second, a high-impact school's mission focusedon academics while average-impact schoolsfocused on rules. Third, effective school admin-istrators and teachers had a consistent view of theschool goals towards achievement. Less effectiveschools had less consistency in what constitutesthe school mission. Fourth, teachers and admin-istrators in high-impact schools embraced externalstandards and assessments while lesser-achievingschools tolerated or complained about thisaccountability. These four factors, which TheEducation Trust study identified, are consistentwith the Effective Schools mission of sharedunderstanding and commitment to the student-focused instructional goals, priorities, assessments,and accountability.

A Safe and Orderly Environment for Learning

The school provides a purposeful, equitable,businesslike atmosphere that encourages,supports, allows mistakes, and is free of fear.School is a place that does no harm to developingpsyches and spirits.

In the hierarchy of human needs, Maslow (1954)put physiological and emotional safety needsfirst, the base for achieving all other physical andpsychological levels. Effective schools mustallow all stakeholders to be and feel safe in orderto learn. Without a safe environment, studentsand teachers can not have the psychologicalenergy to succeed in teaching or learning.Marzano (2003), in a meta-analysis of research

on Safe and Orderly Environment, ranked thisfactor as the fourth most heavily weighted schoolfactor for student achievement. A culture of trustand respect must exist in schools where studentsand teachers build strong relationships, andsupport structures that scaffold studentachievement. Teachers and students alike mustfeel free to take purposeful risks in instruction.

Kaplan and Owings (2007) maintained that,"Worry about safety shifts the brain's attention.When students and teachers worry about theirpersonal safety, their focus insistently turn toprotecting themselves. They become very cautiousand watchful, hyper-alert to potential dangers.At such times, the emotional parts of their brainare more fully aroused and their cognitive areasbecome less active. In such environments, theycannot find any extra energy to pay attention toteaching and learning. Achievement suffers" (p.49). Unless schools attend to this Correlate, theimpact of all other Correlates will be minimized.

Many studies have determined a safe and orderlyenvironment is critical for academic achievement(Chubb & Moe, 1990; Mayer, Moore, & Ralph,2000). In general, the more safe and orderly theschool climate, the higher the student math andreading achievement levels. One study, controllingfor student background characteristics such asrace, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, foundthat students in schools with high levels of vio-lence had lower math scores and students werealmost six percent less likely to graduate(Grogger, 1997).

Additionally, the stronger the climate's academicemphasis in middle schools, the higher thereading, writing, and math achievement tests. Aschool characterized by a safe and orderlyenvironment had significantly less student fear,lower dropout rates, and higher student commit-ment to learning (Grogger, 1997).

Again, The Education Trust (2005) study of high-impact schools found that effective schools havea high level of faculty commitment to providingstudents with a safe environment. The less effec-tive schools had a less focused, more generalperspective on school environment.

Marzano (2003) provided an entire chapter, Safeand Orderly Environment, in which a five-stepaction plan for schools to achieve a safe andorderly environment was recommended:

●● Establish rules and procedures for behavioralproblems that might be caused by the school'sphysical characteristics or the school's routines.This involves examining the school for over-crowding students, staggering movement in hallways, reducing student wait time by usingall entrances and exits, sequencing events incommon areas, and the like.

●● Establish clear schoolwide rules and proce-dures for general behavior. This involvesdeveloping universal rules instead of teacher-specific rules that vary from classroom toclassroom.

●● Establish and enforce appropriate conseq-uences for rule and procedure violations.Discipline must be fair and consistentlyadministered.

●● Establish a program that teaches studentsself-discipline and responsibility. This wouldinvolve conflict resolution or peer mediationprograms. One statewide study using conflictresolution education over three years reporteda 14 percent statewide decrease in suspensions.School districts in which 50 percent or moreor their schools sent student representativesfor conflict resolution training had a 39 percentdrop in suspension rates.

●● Establish a system that allows for the earlydetection of students who have high potentialfor violence and extreme behaviors. An ounceof prevention, common sense dictates, isworth a pound of cure. (pp. 55-58)

Uncompromising Commitment to HighExpectations for All

Those who are leaders empower others tobecome leaders who believe and demonstratethat all students can attain mastery of essentialskills. This commitment is shared by profes-sionals who hold high expectations of them-selves.

In the Pygmalion in the Classroom study, ele-mentary school teachers, who were told thatcertain children were late bloomers and could beexpected to be growth spurters, treated theserandomly selected students as if they were verybright and capable and actually increased theachievement of the students (Rosenthal &Jacobson, 1968). When teachers expect studentsto do well, students tend to do well; when teachersexpect students to fail, they tend to fail. As a rule,all people rise or fall to the level of expectationplaced on them.

According to a United States Department ofEducation (1987) research document, highexpectations for student achievement amongteachers, parents, and students is a key elementof effective schools. More than 15 years later,Marzano (2003) cited high expectations (underChallenging Goals and Effective Feedback) asthe third most important school-level factor instudent achievement. One meta-analysis examinedmore than 200 studies on high academic expec-tations and found where high and clear goalswere established, student achievement was morethan one half of a standard deviation higher thanwhere such expectations were not established(Lipsey & Wilson, 1993). This translates to a21-percentage point achievement difference.Viewed conversely, a British study found thatlow expectations have been identified as a sig-nificant factor in student underachievement indisadvantaged urban schools (OFSTED, 1993).


21


Spring 2008

22

Volume 7, Number 1


High expectations alone, however, do notimprove student achievement. Expectations mustbe operationalized at the classroom and schoollevels so that teachers establish rigorous goalsfor student achievement and provide constructivefeedback on the extent to which students meetthose goals. Communicating high expectations islikewise important since teachers' demonstratedrespect for students' capacities to achieve athigh levels increased student achievement bypositively impacting student self-esteem(Bandura, 1992).

Kaplan and Owings (2007) showed the EffectiveSchools evolution in thought regarding teachers'role in enacting high expectations. They statedthat while the first generation of EffectiveSchools Correlates gave expectations for howteachers should behave or deliver lessons, itdid not charge teachers with assuring studentmastery. Teachers needed only to teach, test,and move on. Providing each student with theopportunity to learn was enough. Teachers heldhigh expectations and acted upon them, but notall students learned.

In the second generation Correlates, however,teachers became responsible for ensuring studentlearning to high standards as well as for using anincreased instructional repertoire. Teachers arenow responsible for knowing the mastery leveleach student needs in each curricular area andare accountable for getting each child to meetthem. What is more, the entire school as anorganization takes a systemic approach to con-tinually identify and support students who do notlearn (Lezotte, 1991).

These revised expectations present a real changein what teachers require of themselves. Tomaintain a climate of high expectations, teachersmust first hold high expectations for themselves.Similarly, the schools must restructure organiza-tionally to provide teachers with more tools tohelp them achieve successful learning for all.

Lastly, schools as cultural organizations musttransform from institutions designed forinstruction to institutions designed to assurelearning (Lezotte, 1991).

Marzano (2003) connected high expectations andchallenging goals with providing effectivestudent feedback that reinforces these highexpectations. He cited studies showing theimpact of feedback on student achievement froma low of a 21-point percentile gain to a high of 41points. Similarly, in a meta-analysis of almost8,000 studies, Hattie (1992) stated, "The simplestprescription for improving education must be'dollops' of feedback" (p. 9). Two necessaryconditions, however, make feedback effectivefor student achievement. First, feedback mustbe timely and provided on multiple learningoccasions as formative assessments that can beused immediately to promote learning. Second,feedback must be content specific, and tailoredprecisely to assess the information and skillsstudents are learning (McMillan, 2000).

Marzano (2003) suggested three action steps toimplement high expectations and effective feed-back. They included the following:

●● Implementing an assessment system that pro-vides timely feedback on specific knowledgeand skills for specific students

●● Establishing specific, challenging achieve-ment goals for the school as a whole

●● Establishing specific goals for individual stu-dents (pp. 39-46)

Instructional Leadership

Although initially coming from the principal,teacher, or administrator, the goal is to includeall participants as instructional leaders as theirknowledge expands as a result of staff devel-opment. New insights excite and inspire stake-holders to take on leadership roles for schoolimprovement. In an accountable learning



23

community, everyone is a learner and all can beleaders.

Instructional leadership has been a fashionableterm for decades, becoming the desired model,especially for principals. In fact, one state hasdefined the principal's role as the instructionalleader of the school. It stresses the importance ofkeeping teaching and learning as the touchstonefor making decisions. The term, however, ismore often a slogan than a well-defined set ofleadership practices.

Instructional leadership does not solely involvethe quality of the principal's leadership. Itrequires leadership's interaction with the school'svision and goals, how leaders change teacher andstudent expectations for higher achievementlevels, and how leaders manage the changeprocess. Leadership includes making the changestowards effective schools systemic to the schoolculture so the changes outlast the leaders' tenurein the facility. Moreover, effective leadershipdevelops teacher leadership so the school'svision carries on beyond individual teachers'presence. In this light, effective leadershipfacilitates only deep and systemic change.

Research supporting instructional leadership isextensive. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty's(2005) meta-analysis examined 69 quantitativestudies that addressed school leadership and stu-dent achievement. These studies involved 2,892schools, 1.4 million students, and 14,000 teachers.

Marzano found an average correlation (r) of .25between leadership behaviors and studentachievement1.

Assuming the average r is accurate at .25, it iseasy to see why leadership is an importantEffective Schools Correlate. Marzano providesan example. Assume a principal is hired to workin a school that has an average achievement levelat the 50th percentile. Also assume that the prin-cipal's leadership ability is at the 50th percentile.After several years, the r of .25 would predictthat the average achievement level in the schoolwould remain the same. If, however, the princi-pal's leadership ability increased one standarddeviation to the 84th percentile, average studentachievement in the school would increase by 10percentage points from the 50th percentile to the60th percentile. If the principal's leadership abilityincreases to the 99th percentile, one would predictaverage student achievement in the school toincrease to the 72nd percentile (Marzano,Waters, & McNulty, 2005).

What does this mean to instructional leaders?Which leadership behaviors or responsibilitiesincrease student achievement? Marzano identi-fied 21 specific responsibilities and the averagecorrelation associated with student achievement.Figure 1 shows the leadership responsibility, itsdefinition, and the average correlation with stu-dent achievement (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty,2005). Each of these items is significant at the.05 level.

Figure 1

Leadership, Responsibilities, and Correlations (r) with Student Achievement

The Extent to Which the PrincipalResponsibility Average r

Recognizes and celebrates accomplishments andacknowledges failures

Is willing to challenge and actively challenges thestatus quo

.19

.25

1. Affirmation

2. Change Agent

Spring 2008

24

Volume 7, Number 1



Recognizes and rewards individual accomplishments

Establishes strong lines of communication with andamong teachers and students

Fosters shared beliefs and a sense of community andcooperation

Protects teachers from issues and influences thatwould detract from teaching time or focus

Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs ofthe current situation and is comfortable with dissent

Establishes clear goals and keeps those goals in theforefront of the school's attention

Communicates and operates from strong ideals andbeliefs about schooling

Involves teachers in the design and implementationof important decisions and policies

Ensures faculty and staff are aware of the most cur-rent theories and practices and makes the discussionof these a regular aspect of the school's culture

Is directly involved in the design and implementationof curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices

Is knowledgeable about current curriculum,instruction, and assessment practices

Monitors the effectiveness of school practices andtheir impact on student learning

Inspires and leads new and challenging innovations

Establishes a set of standard operating proceduresand routines

Is an advocate and spokesperson for the school to allstakeholders

.24

.23

.25

.27

.28

.24

.22

.25

.24

.20

.25

.25

.20

.25

.27

3. Contingent Rewards

4. Communication

5. Culture

6. Discipline

7. Flexibility

8. Focus

9. Ideals/Beliefs

10. Input

11. Intellectual Stimulation

12. Involvement in Curriculum,Instruction, and Assessment

13. Knowledge of Curriculum,Instruction, and Assessment

14. Monitoring/Evaluating

15. Optimizer

16. Order

17. Outreach

Figure 1 (Continued)


Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects ofteachers and staff

Provides teachers with materials and professionaldevelopment necessary for the successful executionof their jobs

Is aware of the details and undercurrents in the run-ning of the school and uses this information toaddress current and potential problems

Has quality contact and interactions with teachers andstudents

.18

.25

.33

.20

18. Relationships

19. Resources

20. Situational Awareness

21. Visibility

Source: Marzano Waters, & McNulty, 2005, pp. 42-43

Effective leadership involves a keen under-standing of the differences between superficialand deep change. The work of Marzano, Waters,and McNulty (2005) is instructive here. A factoranalysis revealed two traits that underlie the 21leadership responsibilities. They defined factorsas first- and second-order change. First-orderchange is an incremental step and can be definedas change that is the most obvious step to take inthe school, or superficial change. Second-orderchange, also called "deep change," involves afundamental shift in the system. All 21 behaviorsare important to first-order change while sevenspecific responsibilities are related to second-order change. Those seven include the followingin rank order:

●● Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, andAssessment

●● Optimizer●● Intellectual Stimulation●● Change Agent●● Monitoring/Evaluating

●● Flexibility●● Ideals/Beliefs

Effective instructional leaders understand thedifference between first- and second-orderchange and focus on those behaviors associatedwith deep change in the school (Reeves, 2006).

While all Effective Schools literature includedinstructional leadership as a Correlate, it remainsan indirect component (Miller & Rowan, 2006).That is, instructional leadership is an influenceon the climate of expectations and is not a directclassroom influence as exerted by teachers.Generally, instructional leadership can influenceachievement when principals do the following:

●● Set and communicate direction by envisioningclear, shared, and understandable courses ofaction and goals, generating high performancestandards, and providing feedback about per-formance to others

●● Develop people by providing educators andothers with the needed support and training


25



Figure 1 (Continued)


Spring 2008

26

Volume 7, Number 1


●● Redesign the school organization by makingit work, ensuring that a wide range of condi-tions and incentives support teaching andlearning (Leithwood et al., 2004; Leithwood& Jantzi, 2005)

Opportunity to Learn is Paramount

Time is allocated for specific and free-choicetasks. Students take part in making decisionsabout goals and tasks.

Schools' primary purpose is teaching for learning.Common sense dictates that for students to achieve,they must have appropriate opportunities to learn.This involves time. Some of the first studies oftime and student achievement were examined bythe International Association for the Evaluationof Educational Achievement when it became acomponent of the First InternationalMathematics Study (Wilkins, 1997). Theresearchers examined amount of time devoted tothe courses. The results of time were varied andassociated positively with student achievement(Husen, 1967). Later researchers examined notonly time allotted for course work but time ontask.

Not all instructional time is constructively usedfor teaching for learning. One study examined

1,500 classroom observations regarding the useof time and found the following:

●● Clear learning objectives __ 4 percent●● Worksheets __ 52 percent●● Lecture __ 31 percent●● Monitoring with no feedback __ 22 percent●● Students required to speak in complete sent-

ences __ 0 percent●● Evidence of assessment for learning __ 0 percent●● Evidence of bell-to-bell instruction __ 0 percent●● Fewer than one-half of students engaged __ 82

percent (Learning 24/7, 2005)

While these figures can not be generalized to allclassrooms, effective school leaders shouldassess the reality of how time is spent in theschools. Clearly, opportunity to learn can beimproved.

In addition, Reeves (2006) showed one school'sresults where the school district increased allottedinstructional time. Students most in need (thosewho tested lowest) were assigned to double-period classes in the subject areas in which theywere weak. The other students were assigned totraditional one-period classes. All students had totake the same final exam. Figure 2 shows theend-of-year results. Failure rates were lower inall double period classes.



27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Alg.1 Geom Prin Math Comp 1 Lit 1 Lit App

Traditional Classes

Double Classes

Figure 2

Impact of Double Periods on Student Failure Rates

Source: Reeves, 2006, p. 103

Of all school level factors that impact studentachievement, Marzano (2003) suggested oppor-tunity to learn is the strongest. Opportunity tolearn is more than just time on task. While timeis important, what happens with that time may bemore significant. Opportunity to learn refers tomaximizing learning time and providing equi-table conditions or circumstances within theschool or classroom that promote learning for allstudents. It includes providing the high-qualitycurricula, learning materials, facilities, teachers,and instructional experiences that enable studentsto achieve high standards.

Additionally, opportunity to learn relates to theabsence of barriers that prevent learning.Opportunity to learn the designated curriculumfor a grade level or age group is a major equityissue for students who are at risk of not devel-oping academically to the fullest potential.Curriculum tracking, for instance, reduces low-track students' opportunity to learn.

One study defined opportunity to learn (OTL) asproviding a conceptual framework for organizingthree key factors associated with studentachievement: curriculum coverage, resourceallocation, and resource use practices (Reichardt,2002). This study examined high-performing,high-need schools (HPHN) and low-performing,high-needs schools (LPHN). It found the maindifference was that HPHN schools used principal"walk-throughs" as tools to enforce curricularcoverage while principals in the LPHN did notenforce curricular coverage.

Content, teaching practices, teaching resources,and time all compose opportunity to learn. If allstudents are to be held to the same high standards,they must have equal access to high-qualityinstruction and curriculum. Having high expec-tations for all students, a clear and focused mis-sion, a safe and orderly learning environment,frequent monitoring of student performance, andpositive home-school relationships will little

Spring 2008

28

Volume 7, Number 1


impact student achievement unless schoolsensure that all students have the opportunity tolearn the essential content and skills.

Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress

Effective schools evaluate the skills andachievements of all students and teachers. Nointimidation is implied. Rather, monitoring oftenis individualized, with improvement in learningas the goal.

Another well-established Correlate is FrequentMonitoring of Student Progress. Monitoringstudent progress by itself, however, accomplisheslittle unless it is coupled with other Correlates topromote an effective school. Working in tandemwith other Correlates, monitoring studentprogress offers four opportunities for schoolimprovement. First, monitoring student progressis a vehicle for determining if, and how well,classroom and school goals are being met.Second, it can help teachers and students to focuson school goals. Third, it is a vehicle to guideplanning, teaching, and assessing content.Fourth, monitoring students' work coupled withtimely and specific feedback shows pupils thatteachers are interested in the work and achieve-ment, and can reinforce the commitment to highexpectations.

Sammons, Hillman, and Mortimore (1995)pointed out that monitoring progress goesbeyond individual students. It involves observingand assessing classes, the school as a whole, andthe improvement programs. Importantly, moni-toring student progress contributes to the focuson teaching for learning, reinforces a climate ofhigh expectations, enacts a focused mission, andprovides greater opportunities to learn.

Levine and Lezotte (1990) cited monitoringstudent progress as an often-referenced EffectiveSchools characteristic, yet argue that little

consensus exists on defining the term, much lessoperationalizing it in the classroom. To addressthis, Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005)clarified the concept by linking monitoring ofstudent progress and the need to provide feed-back to students. Feedback, therefore, is directaction resulting from monitoring studentprogress. The research on monitoring studentwork and providing feedback is rather strongwith some studies showing an effect size of morethan one standard deviation increase in studentachievement (Kumar, 1991; Scheerens &Bosker, 1997). Other studies showed an effectsize of between half a standard deviation toalmost a full standard deviation (Bloom, 1976;Haller, Child, & Walberg, 1988; Walberg, 1999).The effect size increases in student achievementassociated with feedback ranged from 21 to 41points in percentile gains (Marzano, Waters, andMcNulty). To register these large gains, the mon-itoring and feedback must have two factors.

First, the feedback must be timely, specific, andformative. That is, students must receive content-related feedback soon after the work is submitted,while it still holds meaning for them. Second,feedback must be formative−−that is offered overmultiple occasions during the learning processwhen it can immediately be used to enhanceunderstanding as opposed to summative, wherestudents receive feedback at the end of thelearning experience as a grade (Bangert-Downs,Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991).

In a review of the assessment research, Black andWilliam (1998) noted that timely and formativeassessment can have an effect size of 0.7 onstudent achievement. They observed that thisincrease would be sufficient at a country-widelevel in mathematics to boost the United Statesinto the top five scoring mathematics countries inthe world. This amounts to an approximate 25percentile point gain in student test scores.

In addition, the formative feedback must bespecific to the content being learned. Unlessschool assessments are content specific, theassessment will not reveal how well the studentsare learning and diagnose learning weaknesses.In dealing with state No Child Left Behind(NCLB) assessments, schools must align testingwith the assessment criteria. Cizek (2001) andHambleton (2001) observed that state testperformance categories usually provide littleeffective feedback for teachers to pass on tostudents regarding specific knowledge and skills.Marzano (2003) concluded that, "all too oftenschools rely on state tests with vague performancelevel indicators as the primary feedback mech-anism to students on these important tests" (p.29).

Marzano (2003) offered three action steps toimplement an effective feedback program:

●● Implement an assessment system that pro-vides timely feedback on specific knowledgeand skills for specific students

●● Establish specific, challenging achievementgoals for the school as a whole

●● Establish specific goals for individual stu-dents (pp. 39-46)

To be sure, frequent monitoring of studentprogress coupled with timely and specific feed-back can enhance other Correlates and providesignificant improvements in student achieve-ment. Monitoring progress provides student-level data and aggregates those data to assessschool-level goals. Moreover, used correctly,frequently monitoring student progress and givingtimely and specific feedback tend to strengthenall the previously mentioned Correlates.

Enhanced Communication

Includes home, school and community comingtogether as partners in learning for all.

While communication appears last on the Corre-elate list, its contribution to school effectivenessis far from least. Virtually all the literature refersto this Correlate in one form or another. Teddlie,Stringfield, and Reynolds (2000) indicated thatthe terms home-school communication, parentinvolvement, and community involvement fre-quently overlap in the literature. Sammons,Hillman, and Mortimore (1995) referred to thisvariable as "home-school partnership" (p. 21).This definition overlap becomes problematic andcomplex when reviewing research associatedwith this Correlate. In that light, this Correlate'sresearch base is examined.

Enhanced communication involves the degree towhich parents and the community are involvedwith the school. The definitions' overlap, how-ever, raises questions requiring clarification.What constitutes coming together as partners inlearning for all? Does it involve parentalattendance at meetings, active participation, oreven parent leadership? Are the data studentreported, parent reported, or school reported? Isachievement defined as achievement test scoresor GPA? Do different outcomes appear forvarious racial/ethnic groups? How much doesfamily socioeconomic status levels vary? Doesthis Correlate impact various subject areas differ-ently? The answer to all these questions is, Yes.Effects vary, but thoughtful and well designedprograms enhance positive effects across allpopulations.

Epstein (1995) discussed this Correlate's com-plexity and provides a six-category typology forexamining the issue:

●● Parenting __ helping families establish homeenvironments to support children as students

●● Communicating __ designing effective formsof home-to school and school-to-home com-munications about school programs and chil-dren's progress

●● Volunteering __ recruiting and organizing parenthelp and support


29


Spring 2008

30

Volume 7, Number 1


●● Learning at Home __ providing informationand ideas to families about how to help stu-dents at home with homework and other cur-riculum-related activities, decisions, andplanning

●● Decision Making __ including parents inschool decisions, developing parent leadersand representatives

●● Collaborating With the Community __ identi-fying and integrating resources and servicesfrom the community to strengthen schoolprograms, family practices, and studentlearning and development

Epstein (1995) summarized her view of enhancingcommunication and partnerships as follows:

The way schools care about children isreflected in the way schools care about thechildren's families. If educators view chil-dren simply as students, they are likely to seethe family as separate from the school. Thatis, the family is expected to do its job andleave the education of children to the schools.If educators view students as children, theyare likely to see both the family and the com-munity as partners with the school in chil-dren's education and development. Partnersrecognize their shared interests in and respon-sibilities for children, and they work togetherto create better programs and opportunitiesfor students. (p. 701)

Marzano (2003) cited parent and communityinvolvement as the third most important studentachievement variable of the five school-levelfactors−−just behind a guaranteed and viablecurriculum and challenging goals and effectivefeedback. Similarly, in a national British study,Tizard, Schofield, and Hewison (1992) showedthat positive parental involvement in reading hada greater impact on student achievement than anadditional teacher in the classroom.

Echoing much of Epstein's work, Marzano(2003) noted three components to thisCorrelate−−communication, participation, andgovernance. The first component, home-schoolcommunication, is among the most importantfactors in developing strong relationships betweenteachers and families (Christenson & Sheridan,2001; Epstein, 1995). Communication involvestwo-way interaction−−from school to home andfrom home to school. Effective exchanges buildthe trust that fosters parental support for theschool.

Nonetheless, how home-school communicationhelps student achievement is somewhat unclear.Coleman and colleagues (1966) suggested thatwhen parents and teachers express similarobjectives and expectations for students, thecombined force may result in increased studentachievement. Further, the interconnectedness ofrelationships between teacher, student, and parentmay create allies or enemies in the schooling process.Research shows, however, that an open invitationto criticize classroom teachers, schools, andschool policy can have negative impacts onschools (Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Teddlie &Stringfield, 1993). Instead, schools should elicitparent and community involvement in formativepolicy and procedure development that has adirect impact on children and student achieve-ment.

Schools have traditionally viewed interactionwith the home as a vehicle to garner unques-tioning parental support. To be truly effective,schools must communicate with parents as activepartners in the schooling process (Vandergrift &Greene, 1992). To accomplish this goal, schoolsmust change the customary communicationpatterns' focus as seen in Figure 3.


31Research on Effective Schools Correlates: A Summary and Application for Public Schools

Davies (1991) suggested that schools' communi-cation intention shift in order to establish partner-ships for student success. This involves adjustingthe targets from mainly reaching eager, willing,and able parents to also include hard-to-reachfamilies and from basing home-school communi-cations on the school's needs to making familypriorities the primary agenda.

Marzano's (2003) second component, partici-pation, involved recruiting and organizing parentparticipation in the school. Using parents asclassroom aides, guest speakers, and communityresources can help accomplish this. Such diverserecruitment shows the community that the schoolvalues and welcomes parental ideas and support.As an added benefit, when schools involveparents in day-to-day operations, attendancerates increase, graduation rates increase, andtruancy rates decrease (Bucknam, 1976).

Finally, Marzano's (2003) third component,governance, involved including parents in the

school decision-making process−−especiallywith programs and practices shown to impactstudent achievement. When parents participate inschool decisions, the change process implemen-tation brings broader support and understanding(Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996). One study hasdetermined that parental involvement in schoolgovernance may mitigate some of the negativeeffects related to racial/ethnic barriers and differ-ences (Desimone, 1999).

This broad Correlate, enhanced communicationpulling together the home, school, and communitydomains, holds significant promise to increaseschool effectiveness as it overlaps, rather thanseparates, each partner's sphere of influence.

Summary and Conclusions

The Journal for Effective Schools website showsthe following Effective Schools Correlates:●● A clearly stated and focused mission on lear-

ning for all

Figure 3

Parental Involvement Model Adapted from Joyce Epstein's Typology

Old Paradigm From New Paradigm To

Parent Focus

Family

School

Eager, Willing, and Able Parents

School Agendas

Family Focus

Community Agencies

Home/Neighborhood

Hard-to Reach Families

Family Priorities

Spring 2008

32

Volume 7, Number 1


●● A safe and orderly environment for learning●● Uncompromising commitment to high expect-

ations for all●● Instructional leadership●● Opportunity to learn is paramount●● Frequent monitoring of progress●● Enhanced communication

Almost forty years of research affirm that schoolreform based on the effective implementation ofthese Correlates enhances student achievement.As research methods have become more sophis-ticated, the studies examining these Correlateshave become more rigorous. As Marzano (2003)stated,

My premise is that if we follow the guidanceoffered from 35 years of research, we canenter an era of unprecedented effectivenessfor the public practice of education−−one inwhich the vast majority of schools can behighly effective in promoting student learning.(p. 1)

Knowing what is known, one must ask why allschools and school districts don't make a deter-mined effort to apply this research in practice.Educators, students, parents, and communitieshave much to gain.

References

Bandura, A. (1992, April). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Invited address at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, San Francisco, CA.

Bangert-Downs, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructionaleffects of feedback in test-like events. Reviewof Educational Research, 61(2), 213-238.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment inEducation, 5(1), 7-74.

Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Brookover, W. B., & Lezotte, L. (1979). Changes in school characteristics coincidentwith changes in school achievement. EastLansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Bucknam, R. B. (1976). The impact of EBCE: An evaluator's viewpoint. Illinois CareerEducation Journal, 33(3), 32-36.

Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for learning. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools. Washington,DC: The Brookings Institute.

Cizek, G. J. (2001). Conjectures on the rise andcall of standard setting: An introduction toontext and practice. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.),Setting performance standards: Concepts,methods, and perspectives (pp. 3-18). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, M. (1983). Instructional, management and social conditions in effective schools. In A. O. Webb & L. D. Webb (Eds.), Schoolfinance and school improvement: Linkages inthe 1980s. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfield, F. D., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Davies, D. (1991). Schools reaching out: Family, school, and community partnerships for student success. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(5), 376-382.

Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do race and income matter? The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 11-30.

Edmonds, R. R. (1979). A discussion of the literature and issues related to effective schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Graduate School of Education, Center for Urban Studies.

Edmonds, R. R. (1982, December). Programs ofschool improvement: An overview. Educational Leadership, 40(3), 4-11.

Epstein, J. L. (1995, May). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701-712.

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Goddard, R. D., Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K.(2000). Academic emphasis and student achievement. A multi-level analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 5, 683-702.

Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Teacher trust in students and parents: A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in urban elementary schools. Elementary SchoolJournal, 102, 3-17.

Goddard, R. D., LoGerfo, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2003, April). Collective efficacy and student achievement in public high school: Apath analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Grogger, J. (1997). Local violence and educational attainment. The Journal of Human Resources, 32(4), 659-692.

Haller, E. P., Child, D. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1988). Can comprehension be taught? Aquantitative synthesis of "metacognitive studies." Educational Researcher, 17(9), 5-8.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1986). The social context of effective schools. American Journal of Education, 94(3), 328-355.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring theprincipal's contribution to school effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.

Hambleton, R. K. (2001). Setting performance

standards on educational assessments and criteria for evaluating the process. In G. L. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 89-116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hattie, J. A. (1992). Measuring the effects of schooling. Australian Journal of Education, 36(1) 5-13.

Husen, T. (Ed.). (1967). International study of achievement in mathematics (Vols. 1-2). New York, NY: Wiley and Sons.

Jencks, C., Smith, M. S., Ackland, H., Bane, M.J., Cohen, D., Grintlis, H., et al. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effects of family and schooling in America. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39, 1-123.

Kaplan, L., & Owings, W. (2007). Effective schools movement: History, analysis, and application. Pocatello, ID: Idaho State University, Journal for Effective Schools.

Kumar, D. D. (1991). A meta-analysis of the relationship between science instruction and student engagement. Education Review, 43(1), 49-66.

Learning 24/7. (2005). Classroom observation study. Study presented at the meeting of the National Conference on Standards and Assessment, Las Vegas, NV.

Lee, V., Bryk, A., & Smith, J. (1993). The organization of effective secondary schools. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Research in Education, (pp. 171-226). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, K. S., &Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review oftransformational school leadership research (1996-2005). Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177-199.


33


Spring 2008

34

Volume 7, Number 1


Levine, D., & Lezotte, L. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective School Research and Practice.

Lezotte, L. (1991). Correlates of effective schools: The first and second generation. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products, Ltd.

Lightfoot, S. (1983). The good high school: Portraits of character and culture. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioraltreatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis.American Psychologist, 48(12), 1181-1209.

MacKenzie, D. (1983). Research for school improvement: An appraisal of some recent trends. Educational Researcher, 12(4), 5-16.

Madaus, G. F., Airasian, P. W., & Kellaghan, T. (1980). School effectiveness: A reassessment of the evidence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools:Translating research into action. Alexandria,VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works.Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Mayer, D. P., Mullens, J. E., Moore, M. T., & Ralph, J. (2000). Monitoring school quality: An indicator's report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Centerfor Education Statistics.

McMillan, J. H. (2000). Basic assessment concepts for teachers and administrators.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Miller, R. J., & Rowan, B. (2006). Effects of organic management on student achievement.American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 219-253.

OFSTED. (1993). Access and achievement in urban education. London, UK: HMSO.

Orlich, D. C. (1989, March). Education reforms;

Mistakes, misconceptions, miscues. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(7), 512-517.

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effectiveschools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427-452.

Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Reichardt, R. (2002). Opportunity to learn policies and practices in high-performing, high-needs schools and districts. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teachers' expectations and pupils' intellectual development. New York, NY: Rineholt and Winston.

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and theireffects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key characteristics of effective schools: A review of school effectiveness research. London, UK: International SchoolEffectiveness and Improvement Centre.

Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness.New York, NY: Elsevier.

Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1994). Views from the field: Lining school effectiveness and school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(2), 149-177.

Sun, H., Creemers, B., & deJong, R. (2007). Contextual factors in school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(1), 93-122.

Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference: Lessons learned from a 10year study of school effects. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Teddlie, C., Stringfield, S., & Reynolds, D. (2000). Context issues within school



35

effectiveness research. In C. Teddlie and D. Reynolds, The international handbook of school effectiveness research (pp. 160-185). New York. NY: The Falmer Press.

The Education Trust. (2005, November). Gaining traction, gaining ground: How somehigh schools accelerate learning for struggling students. Washington, DC: Author.

Tizard, J., Schofield, W., & Hewison, J. (1982). Symposium: Reading collaboration between teachers and parents in assisting children's reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52(1), 1-15.

United States Department of Education. (1987). What works: Research about teaching and learning (Rev. Ed.). Washington, DC: UnitedStates Department of Education.

Vandergrift, J. A., & Greene, A. L. (1992). Rethinking parent involvement. Educational Leadership, 50(1), 57-59.

Venezky, R., & Winfield, L. (1979). Schools that succeed beyond expectations in teachingreading. Newark, DE: University of Delaware.

Walberg, H. J. (1999). Productive teaching. In H. C. Waxman and H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Newdirections for teaching practice and research (pp. 75-104). Berkeley, CA: McCutchen Publishing Corporation.

Wilkins, J. (1997). Modeling correlates ofproblem-solving skills: Effects of opportunity-to-learn on the attainment of higher-order thinking skills in mathematics.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

End Notes

1. While Gene Glass, considered the father of themeta-analysis, cautions against reportingaverage correlations in meta-analysis, Marzanoreports it because it is still the most commonlyused currency for discussing the meta-analyticfindings in educational research. More comm-only, researchers report graphs indicating therange and frequency of findings. Marzanorelays this information as a range in correl-ations from -.03 to .62. He further examinedthe rigor of the studies as high, medium, orlow. The lower third of studies had the lowestaverage correlations while the higher third hadhigher correlations (.17 versus .31).

Author Note

Leslie S. Kaplan is a retired school administratorand presently an educational researcher andwriter. William A. Owings is former schooladministrator and currently a Professor ofEducational Leadership at Old DominionUniversity in Norfolk, Virginia. They are co-authors of four textbooks, two monographs,dozens of articles in refereed professionaljournals on topics of school leadership andteacher quality for student achievement, schoolfinance, and the upcoming, Effective SchoolsMovement: History, Analysis, and Application

Spring 2008

36

Volume 7, Number 1

John J. Marshak

Introduction

In this era of educational accountability, the callfor the principal to be an instructional leader isever louder. The assumption is that a leader'ssupervision of instruction will lead to improvedstudent achievement. What has the research tosay on this relationship as stated in the EffectiveSchools Instructional Leadership Correlate?

As Glanz, Schulman, and Sullivan (2007) put it,"the absence of research on the impact of super-vision specifically related to achievement hasbeen lamented at many Council of Professors ofInstructional Supervision (COPIS) and AmericanEducational Research Association SpecialInterest Groups (AERA-SIG) annual meetingsand during informal conversations among pro-fessors of supervision" (p. 5). Much of theresearch focuses on the effects of leadership, ingeneral, on student learning and "is unclear, atbest" (Nettles & Harrington, 2007, p. 725).

To start the examination, Waters, Marzano, andMcNulty (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of

5,000 studies, starting with those from the 1970s.The researchers produced a list of twenty-oneleadership behaviors that significantly correlatewith student achievement. Monitoring is the onethat comes closest to instructional supervision.This was described as monitoring the effec-tiveness of school practices on the curriculum,instruction, and assessment. Marzano and col-leagues went on to publish findings with pre-scriptions for practice (Marzano, Waters, &McNulty, 2005). Nowhere, therein, was instruc-tional supervision addressed.

This was not an atypical treatment of the topic.References pointed to the indirect nature of thisrelationship. A review of the literature by Glanz,Shulman, and Sullivan (2007) reported the con-clusion drawn by Levin (2006) that educationalleadership "does not produce a direct effect onstudent learning, but is a mediating influence onteachers, curriculum, instruction, community,and school organization" (p. 40). Reinforcingthis indirect value of leadership are findings ofLeithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, andWahlstrom (2004).

The Effective Schools Correlate -- Instructional Leadership: San Diego's Application

John J. MarshakVirginia Commonwealth University

An examination of meta-analyses is presented to support the contention that there is little researchon the connection of a school system's effort to provide instructional supervision and student achieve-ment. Only conclusions such as its being a "secondary," "indirect," and a significant contributor tothe educational component of the variance in student achievement scores can be found.

Based on the elements of instructional supervision as proffered by the Research on Effective SchoolsCorrelates, a four-year case study of the San Diego, California, Public Schools is reviewed. Themajor revision in supervision philosophy and its implementation are portrayed. To assess the effectof this new direction, the shift in the distribution from the last two quartiles, to the first two, on statetesting is presented. As further evidence of success, the district's steady increase on the state'sAcademic Performance Index for five years after the study is provided.

In a recent comprehensive study attempting tomake such connections, the authors concluded,"leadership is second only to classroom instruc-tion among all school-related factors that con-tribute to what students learn at school" (p. 3).The authors did go further, within the parametersof the study, to avow that "successful leadershipcan play a highly significant−−and frequentlyunderestimated−−role in improving studentlearning" (p. 3). Again, this did not, specifically,address instructional leadership.

Hallinger and Heck (1996) identified and exam-ined approximately forty studies conductedbetween 1980 and 1995 that displayed sufficientrigor and used sophisticated methodologies.They included studies that investigated princi-pals' effects on student achievement measures,whether those effects were direct or indirect. Thestudy concluded that research incorporatingsophisticated modeling methods showed theeffects of school-level leadership on individualstudent achievement were generally small; how-ever, these results appeared to be educationallysignificant in relation to the small proportion ofstudent level variance that can be explained out-side of student-related variables. In this sampleof studies, school leadership effects were shownto explain only up to 5% of the total variance.Although this amount of explained varianceseems small, it represented approximately 25%of the total variability explained by school-relatedvariables.

In looking further for research more specific toinstructional leadership, the following data werefound. In recent decades, the importance ofeffective instructional leadership on school per-formance has been well documented in theliterature (Gates, Ross, & Brewer, 2001; Purkey& Smith, 1983; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty,2003). Although there are numerous constructsby which the components of effective leadershipare defined, there is also a great deal of similarity

among them. A consensus on the definition ofeffective school leadership is far from beingreached (Nettles & Harrington, 2007, p. 726).

Among the elements considered common criticalfactors by Nettles and Harrington (2007) werestakeholder involvement and professional devel-opment, both strongly represented in theCorrelate of Effective Schools' perspective oninstructional leadership. "Although initiallycoming from the principal, teacher, or admin-istrator, the goal is to include all participants asinstructional leaders as their knowledge expandsas a result of staff development. New insightsexcite and inspire. In the accountable learningcommunity, everyone is a student and all can beleaders" (Idaho State University, n.d., p. 2). Thisposition is supported by findings that effectiveprincipals have been shown to (a) build theleadership capacity of teachers and staff, (b)encourage team learning focused on school-widegoals, (c) use organizational flexibility toenhance effectiveness, and (d) distribute lead-ership responsibilities throughout the school(Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002).

What studies support this contention that aninstructional supervision model that provides thisbroad-based involvement and introduces addi-tional knowledge that inspires instruction willimpact how well student succeed? A detailedcase study of one school district presents anexample. It demonstrates the principles ofcreating a learning community based on staffdevelopment and the distributed leadershipresponsibilities across a school system and itspositive effect on student achievement.

San Diego's Reform

Instructional Leadership for Systematic Change:The Story of San Diego's Reform, a book byDarling-Hammond and colleagues (2005) wasthe product of a study sponsored by the Center

The Effective Schools Correlate - Instructional Leadership: San Diego’s Application

37


Spring 2008

38

Volume 7, Number 1

John J. Marshak

for the Study of Teaching and Learning, withfunding from the U.S. Office of EducationalResearch and Development Centers Program,PR/Award Number R308B970003. It examinedthe process by which that school district tooksignificant steps in changing the way they dobusiness.

In the summer of 1998, the San Diego UnifiedSchool District in California launched a majorreform movement. The district hired AlanBersin, the former U.S. attorney of the southernDistrict of California and the southwest border asSuperintendent of Schools. Anthony Alvaradowas selected as the Chancellor of Instruction.Alvarado had been the Superintendent of NewYork's Community School District No. 2. Bersinmanaged the district's political, business, andorganizational aspects while Alvarado assumedresponsibility for instructional aspects. Thisconsisted of "establishing a professionalaccountability system, concentrating all decisionmaking around issues of teaching quality,creating an infrastructure of reforms to improvethe knowledge and skills of all personnel, andinstituting a tightly coupled instructional-changeprocess with a strong focus on equality as well asquality. Together, this pair sought to anchor theschool system with research on teaching andlearning" (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2005, p.11).

Selecting improvement in student literacy as thefirst goal, the authors designed a four-prongedapproach. First, assistant superintendents werereplaced with seven newly promoted principalsto serve as instructional leaders. Each of theformer principals had demonstrated high levelsof understanding and skill as instructional leadersin their schools. The initial group training duringthe first summer of the reform consisted ofobserving actual practices and participating inliteracy activities. In the second prong, theinstructional leaders accepted responsibility for

seven "learning communities" of principals.They held monthly conferences for the principals"to learn about leading school staffs in high-quality instructional practices" (Darling-Hammond,et al. 2005, p. 21). The conferences took manyforms. They included visits to successful localclassrooms, discussions with internationalexperts on topics such as teaching techniques,and examinations of student performance data.Instructional leaders visited the principals'schools at least three times a year and as often asmonthly. The purposes of these visits were toevaluate the site's progress, observe classroompractices, and assist in identifying specificinstructional practices that needed additionalsupport. In this way, principals' competencieswere strengthened as instructional leaders bylearning how to better assist teachers to incor-porate professional learning from staff devel-opment (the third prong) into the classrooms.This included improving the principals' abilityto evaluate the quality of instruction.

Teacher staff development was intensive andfocused on literacy. During summers and inter-cessions, as many as 150 classes were offered toteachers each year. They ranged in length fromone to seven days with a $15 per hour reimburse-ment for attendance. Principals periodicallyreceived lists of the teachers and what trainingthey received. In this way, principals remainedinformed about the instructional staff members'knowledge level, in addition to teacher, within-school, professional development activities.

The last element, the fourth prong, of thisprocess provided a network of university trainedand certified peer coaches/staff developers.These were accomplished teachers identified byschool principals and who expressed an interestin working with peers. The peer coaches/staffdevelopers received assignments to schools towork directly with classroom teachers on instruc-tional practices. Because the training extended



39

beyond the teacher professional development,the peer coaches could assist teachers to imple-ment the newly learned theories and strategiesinto the classrooms. By the second year, everyschool had at least one full-time peer coach/staffdeveloper. (It is interesting to note that a majorpart of the funding for these positions wasthrough a state-sponsored program for mentoringnew teachers.)

Although not all teachers, particularly those withmore years experience than the coaches, werereceptive of the coaches' role, it greatly increasedcommunication between teachers. This focusedprofessional interaction contributed to breakingdown "the notion that a classroom is a privatepreserve [which] is a value that still exists in theworld and is inconsistent with the professional-ization of teaching" (Bersin as cited in Darling-Hammond, et al., 2005, p. 17). Since the coacheswere not responsible for teachers' summativeevaluations, communication was much moreopen than it would have been with the principal,even with his or her expanded role.

Each of the four prongs made a unique contri-bution to the development of a true, learningcommunity for the San Diego City Schools. Itwas:

. . . a forceful district-led agenda that turnedmany traditional notions of the relationshipbetween bureaucracy and innovation upsidedown. It sought to empower teachers andprincipals at the "bottom" of the system tosolve problems more effectively by organizingintensive professional-development opportu-nities that would enhance their expertise andby creating a culture of shared norms of prac-tice from the "top" and "bottom" simultane-ously. At the same time, the district attemptedto change the culture of a large organizationand move it quickly in a common directionwith strong interventions from the top of thesystem that affected every aspect of opera-tions through-out the enterprise . . . This

created a paradoxical situation in which thosebeing empowered with greater knowledgefelt less empowered and autonomous in makingmany decisions, especially during the firstthree years of the reform. (Darling-Hammondet al., 2005, p. 183)

There was, however, a price to pay for this force-fulness. The reform process had trade-offs andside effects. One was the increased in-schoolstratification created by the Literacy-Blockclasses targeted at low-achieving students.Another was the loss of team teaching and planningopportunities in some schools as they bentstructures to implement the new initiatives.

The above would appear to be counter to theLeadership Correlate's contention to include allparticipants as instructional leaders. However,the authors note, as the reform's norms becameinstitutionalized, "there were signs that the districtwas becoming more comfortable with negotiatingflexibility in some aspect of implementation withlocal schools and more responsive in listening toboth concerns and ideas from those in the field,as long as they lay within the parameters of pro-fessional practice and equity set out as the goalpostof the work" (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005, p.186). This would imply that the reorganizationand refocusing efforts necessitated a top downleadership strategy to move the system in a newdirection. However, once the direction becameclear via an intensive and consistent staff devel-opment program, the upper levels of the admin-istration were willing to entertain input from thefield. As that occurred, all participants functionedas instructional leaders in the change process.

San Diego's Results

It is important to understand the school district'sstudent population before reviewing the results.The San Diego Unified School Division, on itswebsite, provides the following demographicdescription of its students for the time period inquestion and subsequently.

Spring 2008Volume 7, Number 1

40John J. Marshak

Table 1

Percent of San Diego Students by Various Demographic Categories

Year 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

K-12 Enrollment 141,409 141,171 140,753 137,960 134,709

Hispanic 38.5 39.7 40.9 41.9 42.6

White 27.0 26.6 26.2 25.9 25.8

African American 16.2 15.6 15.0 14.5 14.2

Asian 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.1

Filipino 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.5 7.2

Indo-Chinese 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.6 5.6

Pacific Islander 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Native American 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5

Free & Reduced Lunch 57.3 56.3 56.4 55.5 57.1

ESL 28.1 29.6 29.4 28.4 28.3

Over the five-year period for which data areavailable, the drop in total enrollment was almostfive percent, but the ethnic distribution sawchanges of two percent or less, with the excep-tion of the Hispanic population. Also, there wasvery small variation in the sizable percentagesof English as a Second Language (ESL) andcertified eligible-for-meal-cost-reduction students.No demographic data for 1999-2000 (the earlystages of the reform) were available, especiallyas related to the increase in those taking the statetest.

Darling-Hammond and colleagues (2005) pre-sented a limited summary of San Diego students'results on the State of California's assessmenttests (SAT-9) to support the contention thatAlvarado's and Bresin's efforts to create alearning community to support instruction basedon research succeeded. The data covering theyears from 1998 to 2002 were presented in twoforms. The first is a report of the distribution ofthe district students' scores, in quartiles, for allgrade levels tested (2-11) over the five years ofthe study. A comparison of the pre-reform andfifth-year performances of students appears inTable 2.

The reduction in the percentage of students in thefirst quartile and the increase in the number ofstudents in the fourth quartile over the five-yearperiod in both reading and math is apparent. Theoverall distribution is approaching the nationaldistribution (25 percent in each quartile) withwork still to be done on those in the first quartilein reading. However, the increased percentage ofstudents achieving in the fourth quartile in mathis noteworthy.

The second report format showed the percentageof students in the highest two quartiles for eachgrade level, for grades 2 to 11, in reading andmath. The most dramatic, double-digit, increasesin the percentage of students in the top twoquartiles over the five year period were seen inthe earliest three grades for reading, and earliestfour grades for math, and are clear in Table 3.

Table 2

Percent of Students Scoring in Each Quartile on the National Distribution (SAT-9) Grades 2-11Combined

TOTAL READING TOTAL MATH

Year 1998 2001 1998 2001

Quartile 1 36 29 31 24

Quartile 2 23 24 24 23

Quartile 3 21 23 21 23

Quartile 4 20 24 24 30

Table 3

Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the 50th Percentile on SAT-9


Year 1998 2002 % Change 1998 2002 % Change

Grade 2 43 61 +18 50 64 +14

Grade 3 41 52 +11 46 64 +18

Grade 4 41 51 +10 42 55 +13

Grade 5 44 49 +5 45 55 +10


41



42

Volume 7, Number 1

John J. Marshak

Grade 6 43 50 +7 47 55 +8

Grade 7 44 49 +5 42 50 +8

Grade 8 45 52 +7 40 46 +6

Grade 9 36 37 +1 48 54 +6

Grade 10 34 35 +1 42 46 +4

Grade 11 37 40 +3 45 51 +6

As is apparent, movement into the top twoquartiles for the other grades (6-11) was alsopositive, but in the single digits. Since the initialinstructional changes focused on the lowergrades, a distribution such as this is under-standable.

It is important to observe that during these years,both a greater percentage of San Diego's studentsand the actual number of students testedincreased. By 2001, most schools were testing98 percent of students, an increase of about 20percent, while the actual number of students rosefrom 86,635 to 93,626 (in reading) over the fiveyears. This is an important change in the testpopulation due to the school district's demo-graphics. The student population, as a whole,included a much larger proportion of low-incomestudents and students of color than the state. Asconstrued from Table 1, 75 percent were minority,almost 60 percent qualified for free and reducedlunch, and over 30 percent were designated aslimited English proficient. It is more than likely

that these students previous excluded from testingdue to limited potential for success had begun tobenefit from the reform and returned to the testingpopulation. With these students' inclusion in thetesting, even without sophisticated analysis tech-niques being applied, the magnitude of positiveachievement change that occurred can beappreciated.

For the years following the study, San Diego'sStandard, Assessment and AccountabilityDivision reports indicate continued growth. Themost comprehensive measure available for this isthe Academic Performance Index (API). As statedon the website, this instrument:

helps measure the academic performance andgrowth of schools. It is a numeric index (orscale) that ranges from a low of 200 to a highof 1000. A school's score or placement on theAPI is an indicator of a school's performancelevel. The interim statewide API performancetarget for all schools is 800. A school's growth

Table 3 (Continued)

Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the 50th Percentile on SAT-9


Year 1998 2002 % Change 1998 2002 % Change



43

The increase in annual API scores is clear. Theyare approaching the current state specified targetlevel of 800 but at a slower rate. Likewise, thepercentage of students eligible for testing whoare tested appears to be maintained, assuming thetrend continues.

Summary

San Diego presents a clear example of a schoolsystem's concerted effort to change how schoolleadership impacts classroom instruction andstudent achievement by replacing assistantsuperintendents with instructional leaders, eachresponsible for supervising a small group ofprincipals, and decentralized responsibility and

leadership. These principals received monthlytraining about creating learning communities inthe schools. Classroom teachers' perceptions ofindependence and isolation broke down. By thestudy's end, each school had a full-time peercoach/staff development person providingnon-threatening feedback to teachers onimplementation of the new instructionalstrategies provided by an intensive professionaldevelopment program. As direction becameclear and buy-in occurred, higher levels ofadministration were willing to accept input fromthe field on improving the delivery system. Thisis all consistent with the Instructional LeadershipCorrelate.

Table 4

Progress in Attaining Target Scores on State of California Testing

Year Number of Students Percent of API Score Increase Overin Grades 2-11 Students Tested Previous Year

2001-02 91,213 98% 677

2002-03 92,277 99% 697 +20

2003-04 90,284 99% 713 +14

2004-05 88,276 99% 728 +15

2005-06 84,715 731 +3

2006-07 83,327 735 +4

Note: Blanks and slight value differences are due to discrepancies in year-to-year reporting.

is measured by how well it is moving toward(or past) that goal. The API was established in1999 through the Public Schools Account-ability Act (PSAA). (San Diego UnifiedSchool District, n.d.)

A more comprehensive, historical set of data onSan Diego's subsequent progress is found onCalifornia's State Department of Education (DataQuest, 2007) website. From a series of its annualreports, Table 4 was constructed.

Spring 2008

44

Volume 7, Number 1

John J. Marshak

The state testing results clearly indicate theincrease in student achievement over the firstfive years of the change. For all grade levels, thesystem moved from more students in the lowesttwo quartiles of the national distribution toalmost having 25 percent in each of the four.Even more encouraging was the double-digitincrease in the percent of student in the top twoquartiles in reading and math for the lower threegrades.

Changing criteria to API scores for the mostrecent years has witnessed an ever increasingprogression toward the state-specified targetlevel. The achievement level of 735 as of thiswriting is clearly within reach of the 800 mark.The slowing rate of approach is worthy ofmention.

This case study focused on program imple-mentation designed to provide increased instruc-tional leadership to a school district to increasestudent achievement. It exemplifies almost allthe Effective Schools Instructional LeadershipCorrelate characteristics.

References

Darling-Hammond, L., Hightower, A. M., Husbands, J. L., LaFors, J. R., Young, V. M., & Christopher, C. (2005). Instructional leadership for systemic change: The story of San Diego's reform. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.

Data Quest. (2007, October). Academic performance index (API) report. Available at http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/API/APISearchName.asp?TheYear=&cTopic=API&cLevel=District&cName=San^Diego&cCounty=&cTimeFrame=S

Gates, S., Ross, K., & Brewer, D. (2001). Leading to reform: Educational leadership for the 21st Century. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Glanz, J., Shulman, V., & Sullivan, S. (2007, April). Impact of instructional supervision onstudent achievement: Can we make the connection? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Chicago, IL.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED496124)

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: Areview of empirical research, 1980-95. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1),5-44.

Idaho State University. (n.d.) Publication guidelines. Pocatello, ID: Author, Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness, Journal for Effective Schools.Available from http://icee.isu.edu/Journal/PublicationGuidelines.pdf

Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning (Executive Summary). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Levin, H. M. (2006). Can research improve educational leadership? Educational Researcher, 35(8), 38-43.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Nettles, S., & Harrington, C. (2007). Revisitingthe importance of the direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 724-736.

Purkey, S., & Smith, M. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 427-452.

Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. S. (2002). A comparison of outcomes for middle school students with

learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68, 203-222.

San Diego Unified School District. (n.d.). Academic performance index (API). San Diego, CA: Author. Available at http://www.sandi.net/assessment/api/index.htm

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement: Aworking paper. Aurora, CO: Mid-ContinentalRegional Educational Lab.

John J. Marshak is an Associate Professor ofEducational Leadership at Virginia Common-wealth University. His areas of specialization andresearch are best practices in school leadership,school finance policy development, court-ordered state educational finance reform, andNAEP data investigation.

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to John J. Marshak, VirginiaCommonwealth University, Oliver Hall, Room2105, 1015 West Main Street, P.O. Box 842020, Richmond, Virginia 23284-2020.E-mail: [email protected]


45


Spring 2008

46

Volume 7, Number 1

Karen S. Crum and Whitney H. Sherman

Student demographics in the United States haveincreasingly become diversified (Reitumetse &Madsen, 2005). According to Lim and A'Ole-Boune (2005), 43 percent of children currentlybeing served by public schools are non-White;future projections indicate that this trend willcontinue until the majority of students are indi-viduals of color by the year 2020 (Gardiner &Enomoto, 2006; Meyer & Rhoades, 2006;Marbley, Bonner, McKisick, Henfield, & Watts,2007). Further confounding this trend toward anAmerican melting pot is the prediction that one-quarter of the student population will be living inpoverty or homeless by 2020 (Gardiner &Enomoto). Currently, over five million studentsin the United States are English language learn-ers resulting in over 400 languages being spokenin schools on a daily basis (Klotz, 2008).

Though student demographics have become pro-gressively multicultural, equitable educationaloutcomes are not often evident (Gordon, 2006;Erford, House, & Martin, 2007). In spite of

research demonstrating the effectiveness ofCorrelates for some in the Effective SchoolsResearch, these practices have not successfullybeen brought to scale. Because Effective SchoolsResearch and identified Correlates have beenproven as effective in schools that enact them, itis helpful to take a closer look at what theseCorrelates imply for an increasingly diverseschool population and how they might work tosupport current calls for culturally competentleadership. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB)Act demands a greater focus on subgroups andminorities and that schools work with all stu-dents more intensely to ensure high academicachievement. Furthermore, research on ethicalleadership maintains that, even outside of therequirements of NCLB, advocacy for all studentsis a moral imperative (Starratt, 1994) and arequirement for culturally competent leadership.Furthermore, many believe that to affect changeand, in turn, impact all students through theelimination of the achievement gap, culturallyresponsive leadership is needed (Growe,

Using Effective Schools Research to Promote Culturally Competent Leadership Practice

Karen S. CrumOld Dominion University

Whitney H. ShermanVirginia Commonwealth University

Student demographics have become progressively multicultural, but equitable educational outcomesare not often evident (Gordon, 2006; Erford, House, & Martin, 2007). Because Effective SchoolsResearch and identified Correlates have been proven as effective in schools that enact them, theauthors take a closer look at what these Correlates imply for an increasingly diverse school pop-ulation and how they might work to support current calls for culturally competent leadership. TwoCorrelates of the Effective Schools Research−−Uncompromising Commitment to High Expectationsfor All and Enhanced Communication−−are linked with what the literature says about culturallycompetent leadership practice to provide a more comprehensive picture of what effective leadershiplooks like in an increasingly multicultural school environment. In conclusion, recommendations forK-12 leaders and leadership preparation programs for fostering effective school environments thatare responsive to the diverse needs of the students are provided.



47

Schmersahl, Perry, & Henry, 2002; Hines &Fields, 2004).

The article begins with a brief history of theachievement gap between racial groups andstudents of varying social economic status and isfollowed by an exploration of two selectedEffective Schools Correlates−−UncompromisingCommitment to High Expectations for All andEnhanced Communication−−that the authorsbelieve have significant implications for fosteringeffective school environments when combinedwith best practices identified in the literature onculturally competent leadership. Because theoverarching intent of this paper is to encourageeffective leadership practice and school envi-ronments in which all students succeed, recom-mendations for practicing leaders and institutionsof higher education are shared.

Achievement, Diversity, and SocioeconomicStatus

Educational opportunity and academic achieve-ment are directly tied to the social divisionsassociated with race, ethnicity, gender, firstlanguage, and social class. (Gordon, 2006, p.25)

The achievement gap is the pattern of differencein success rates between White and minoritystudents over a number of school indicatorsincluding: test scores; retention rates, dropoutrates, and college entrance rates (Sherman &Grogan, 2003). Students of color and studentsfrom low-income families have historicallyperformed lower than White middle class stu-dents on achievement assessments of vocabulary,reading, and mathematics, as well as onmeasurements of scholastic aptitude andintelligence (Gordon, 2006; Jencks & Phillips,1998; Singham, 1998). During the 1970s,African-American and Latino students per-formed poorly on both standardized mathematics

tests (34-36 point difference) and readingachievement assessments (34-53 point difference)compared to Caucasian counterparts (Gordon).Despite large point differences, evidence supportsthe notion that a reduction in the achievementgap was also occurring. However, progress madetoward closing the gap in the 1970s practicallyceased during the 1990s (Gordon) and morerecent data from the National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP) show the achieve-ment gaps remain large between White studentsand students of color, even in light of the imple-mentation of NCLB.

Multiple factors work together to create andsustain achievement gaps. According to Bennett(2007), the percentage of children living infamilies with low-economic status is increasing(Bailey, Getch, & Chen-Hayes, 2007)−−nearly40 percent of children are with families whohave "precariously low income" (p. 245). Tofurther complicate an understanding of theachievement gap, African Americans are threetimes more likely to come from poverty thanCaucasians (Viadero, 2000) and create an inter-section between race, poverty, and achievement.According to Day-Vines and Day-Hairston(2005), students in the third grade receivingfree and reduced lunch are 8.1 months behindnon-free and reduced lunch counterparts in math-ematics and 9.7 months behind in reading. At themiddle school level, eighth grade students frommiddle class and affluent families score belowbasic math proficiency levels at only a rate of25%, compared to students with low socioe-conomic backgrounds at 56%.

Pathways to Success for All Students

While the interaction of all of the Correlatesidentified in Effective Schools Research leads tothe greatest potential for student achievement,two of the Correlates: High Expectations andEnhanced Communication, have significant

48



and rectifying school practices that have, histori-cally, underserved or, in some cases, ignoredminority students. However, the intent of thispaper is to push boundaries and delve deeper intoactions at both the K-12 and higher educationlevels that will lead to achievement for all stu-dents by reviewing Effective Schools literaturealong with research that gives importance tocultural competence to provide readers with amore complete set of strategies from which tochoose when seeking to improve success.

Effective Schools Correlate: UncompromisingCommitment to High Expectations for All

A teacher's belief about students' chances ofsuccess in school influence the teacher'sactions with students, which in turn influencestudents' achievement. If the teacher believes stu-dents can succeed, she tends to behave in waysthat help them succeed. If the teacher believesthat students cannot succeed, she unwittinglytends to behave in ways that subvert studentsuccess or at least do not facilitate studentsuccess. (Marzano, 2007, p. 162)

According to Effective Schools Research, schoolenvironments must demonstrate an Uncomp-romising Commitment to High Expectations forAll students to flourish because of the Correlate'scentrality to student achievement. A solid bodyof research supports the value of setting highachievement expectations for all students tosupport student success (Brown & Medway,2007; Goddard, Scott, & Hoy, 2000; Kaplan &Owings, 2007; Kelley Heneman, & Milanowski,2002; Lee and Bowen, 2006; Waxman & Huang,1997). Kelley and colleagues found that "teachers'average expectancy was a significant predictor"(p. 393) of whether or not the correspondingschools would reach specified achievementgoals. Further, expectations are not limited to thescope of academics; rather, schools supportingan atmosphere of high expectations promote a

culture where "every student is expected tobehave and perform well" and where "[t]eachersand counselors prepare students for life afterhigh school−−specifically for college andcareers−−rather than merely for high schoolgraduation" (Kaplan & Owings, p. 8).

Schools and staff with a strong academicemphasis, as noted by Goddard, Scott, and Hoy(2000), reported a significant impact on studentachievement. Goddard and colleagues opera-tionalized the definition of academic emphasis asan environment where "teachers set reasonablegoals and believe in their students' abilities toachieve . . . " (p. 698). Teachers and principalsin 45 elementary schools were surveyed aboutacademic emphasis and using hierarchical linearmodeling, the researchers found that this couldbe significantly attributed to student achieve-ment. Academic emphasis explained approxi-mately 50% of student performance variability(47.4% for mathematics and 50.4% for reading).Importantly, this type of focus on beliefs instudents' abilities and the power of goal settinghas also been purported to positively impact poorand minority student achievement (Goddard, etal.).

Waxman and Huang's (1997) research supportedthe notion by Effective Schools' proponents thatsuccessful schools promote a culture of highexpectations. In an effort to learn if there were"significant differences between effective andineffective urban schools" (p. 16) in relation tostudent behavior, as well as motivation and per-ceptions, a study was conducted in eight urbanelementary schools located in one large urbanschool system with predominately African-American (> 90%) students. Using an Analysisof Variance, the statistically significant findingsindicated that African American students inurban elementary schools were more achieve-ment motivated than peers in ineffective schools,had higher academic self-concepts, were more



49

task oriented, and reported significantly higherlevels of aspirations.

According to Hess (1999), high teacher expecta-tions have a powerful influence on studentperformance. He asserted that a major componentof the reform movement in Chicago PublicSchools was the need to change the expectationlevels of the staff members to support high studentachievement, as demonstrated in numerousstudies at the local and national levels. Thus,school cultures that support all students andencourage success have demonstrably led tohigher levels of achievement.

Interested in delving deeper into the affect ofhaving high expectations for all students onachievement, Hoy, Tarter, and Hoy (2006) inves-tigated the impact of academic optimism, as anecessary condition for high expectations, onstudent achievement in 96 high schools. Threeprimary variables were measured including:academic emphasis; collective efficacy; andfaculty trust in parents in students. Academicoptimism was found to be significantly related tostudent achievement. Additionally, resultsrevealed that "academic optimism can be con-ceived as an important latent school property thatcan be attributed to the school" (p. 437).

Along similar lines, Stewart (2008) examined thelinkages between individual and school levelstructural characteristics and the relation toachievement. Data from the 1990 NationalCenter for Education Statistics were analyzed aswell as school characteristic data from adminis-trators and teachers. Using hierarchical linearmodeling, Stewart found that both "schoolattachment and school commitment were signifi-cantly associated with academic achievement"(p. 197).

While educators may have high expectations forstudent achievement, communicating these

expectations through well-developed relation-ships is vital. O'Connor and McCartney (2007)found that quality teacher-child relationshipswere positively associated with achievement andthat, from the time they were born until sixthgrade, "children's achievement at third grade wasinfluenced by early cognitive ability . . . teacher-child relationships, child classroom instruction,teachers' academic instruction" (p. 363) amongother variables. Further, the relationshipsformed by the teacher and child and the positiveimpact on achievement were found to be "par-ticularly robust." Thus, while staff members mayhave high levels of expectations for the stu-dents in the school, the relationships formed arevital to the successful communication of highexpectations.

Effective Schools Correlate: EnhancedCommunication

One of the most consistent and seemingly uncon-troversial findings in the education literatureconcerns the importance of parent involvementfor children's learning and schools' success.(Henig, Hula, Orr, & Pedescleaux, 1999, p. 155)

High expectations are integral to studentachievement, and, therefore, the way in whichexpectations are communicated also significantlyimpacts achievement. Further, communication ismore than a didactic one-way method for relayinginformation and, instead, involves a cyclicprocess of conveying and receiving knowledgebetween the school, home, and community.

Research supports the notion that the environ-ments surrounding schools are important for thedevelopment of children (Condley, 2006).According to Kaplan and Owings (2007),effective schools are ones that "work closelywith the community and parents to support theirchildren's education." and where "[b]usiness andcommunity partnerships aid students' preparation

50



for postsecondary opportunities" (p. 9).Similarly, Riehl (2000) asserted that schoolscannot operate as islands isolated from the sur-rounding needs and concerns of the communitiesfrom which their students come from. In fact,

effective administrators understand theseinterorganizational and community dynamicsand seek to position schools to take advantageof positive resources offered by other institu-tions, to buffer students (and the school) fromthe negative impact of other institutions andsometimes the community itself, and to provideservices that meet students' needs while alsostrengthening the communities in which theylive. (p. 66)

Research on school reform movements supportsEffective Schools Research and identifiedCorrelates, particularly the importance of com-munication (Condley, 2006; Duke, 2007; Kim &Crasco, 2006; Lee & Bowen, 2006; Stewart,2008).

Kim and Crasco (2006) reported on the bestpractices and policies of the Urban SystemicInitiative program that examine six differenteducational reform drivers, one of which wasbroad-based support. Broad-based support wascomprised of the stakeholders, communitymembers, and partners involved with the dis-tricts. Broad-based support was found to have asignificant impact on student achievement in thedistricts examined. This is reflective in the largerunderstanding in the Effective Schools move-ment that a combination of factors (Correlates)impact student achievement.

Duke (2007) studied fifteen successful turn-around schools at the elementary level that hadmaintained successful changes within theirschools for at least two years prior to the studyand found that all but one of the identifiedschools used effective communication practices

to facilitate parent involvement. In fact, the turn-around schools used a variety of practices thatwere aimed at incorporating families and busi-nesses into the school environment including:encouraging parental participation within theclassroom setting; sending home regular reportsabout student progress; the development orimprovement of parental involvement programs;the development of a parent resource center; andoffering a parenting class.

Undoubtedly, communication, in combinationwith other factors, contributes to student achieve-ment. However, several researchers have foundthat communication can also singularly impactschool effectiveness. Using hierarchical multipleregression analysis, Lee and Bowen (2006)found that parental involvement explained a sig-nificant percentage of variance in academicachievement among the study participants. Infact, involvement by parents can counteract edu-cational levels of the families (Lee & Bowen).Jeynes (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of 52studies that focused on the impact of parentalinvolvement on student achievement to learn if"parental involvement [can] really improve theeducational outcomes of urban children" (p. 83).Using regression analysis, Jeynes determinedthat the overall effect size was statisticallysignificant. The impact of parental involvementwas high across cultural populations and providessolid evidence for schools to develop and imple-ment activities that support families.

Though research supports the Effective SchoolsCorrelates, Enhanced Communication and HighExpectations, as student demographics becomeincreasingly multicultural, equitable outcomesare less and less evident (Gordon, 2006; Erford,House, & Martin, 2007). Because EffectiveSchools Research and identified Correlates havebeen proven as effective in schools that enactthem, it is helpful to take a closer look at whatthese Correlates imply for an increasingly



51

diverse school population and how they mightwork to support recent demands for increasedcultural sensitivity combined with calls for cul-turally competent leadership and multiculturalcurriculum practices. Doing so enhances what isalready known about good practice in regard tocommunication and high expectations andpotentially lifts student achievement for allstudents to new heights by building leaders thatare not only successful at enacting the EffectiveSchools Correlates, but at practicing culturallycompetent leadership as well.

Culturally Competent Leadership Practice

[L]eadership practices by a multiculturallycompetent administrator are an essentialcomponent to bridging achievement gaps.(Grothaus & Crum, 2008)

In order to affect change in the teaching andlearning structure within schools to impact allstudents and eliminate the achievement gap, cul-turally responsive leadership is needed (Growe,Schmersahl, Perry, & Henry, 2002; Hines &Fields, 2004). In 1996, the Interstate SchoolLeaders Licensure Consortium developedStandards for School Leaders, a best practicesguide for professional standards, to influenceleadership practice and to strengthen the prepa-ration of future school leaders. The standardsidentify components critical to successful leader-ship practice and specifically address the needfor multicultural leadership competence topromote student learning:

A school administrator is an educationalleader who promotes the success of all stu-dents by advocating, nurturing, and sustaininga school culture and instructional programconducive to student learning and staff pro-fessional growth. The administrator has know-ledge and understanding of: . . . diversity andits meaning for educational programs . . .

school cultures . . . (and) The administratorbelieves in, values, and is committed to . . .the benefits that diversity brings to theschool. (p. 12)

Thus, attention to the needs of all students is nolonger a personal leadership choice, but rather, aprofessional standard for best practice.According to Klotz (2008), "[a] culturally com-petent school is generally defined as one thathonors, respects, and values diversity in theoryand in practice and where teaching and learningare made relevant and meaningful to students ofvarious cultures" (p. 280). Principals leadingschools must work to ensure this translatesinto practice to become effective culturally com-petent leaders. Practicing culturally competentleadership requires not only the celebration ofdiversity, but the infusion of diversity throughoutschool practices, curriculum, and faculty repre-sentation (Lewis, 2001). It is more than the mereacknowledgement of Black History month inFebruary, it demands that all backgrounds bevalued and acknowledged on a regular basis, 12months out of the year.

According to Sherman and Grogan (2003), cul-turally competent leaders do the following inschool environments: establish cultural sensitivitytraining for teachers, implement mentoring pro-grams for minority students, hire minorityachievement coordinators, implement collegepreparatory programs for minorities, and trainteachers in using data analysis to directinstruction. According to Sherman (in press),leaders most competent at meeting the needs ofdiverse students establish community meetingsto gain stakeholder buy-in and to determine,through consensus, areas needing improvement,develop and foster district-university partnerships(i.e. dual enrollment courses, advanced placementcourses), create and sustain parenting centers(staffed with school personnel and available afterschool hours during afternoons and evenings),

52



use disaggregated reports each nine weeks todevelop achievement plans to meet the academicneeds of each learner, work with the NAACP tohold forums and meetings to look at gaps andsuspension rates, and coordinate faith-basedpartnerships with local churches.

Riehl (2000) identified three classes of tasks cul-turally competent leaders undertake to promoteand sustain a positive multicultural learningenvironment. Two of the three are directly linkedto Effective Schools Research. The first is forleaders to construct new meanings about diversity,the second is for leaders to promote inclusivepractices, and the third is to build connectionsbetween the school and community. Promotinginclusive practices, when enacted from a multi-cultural lens, requires the setting of highexpectations for all students through culturallycompetent leadership. Additionally, buildingschool and community connections is taken tothe next level when viewed from an inclusivelens that requires leaders to make traditionallyinvisible groups visible and to seek out additionalvoices when creating policies that have historicallybeen silenced.

Successful schools utilize practices such as per-sonalizing the school experience for students andestablishing school-wide responsibility for stu-dent achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1997) topromote student success. "Schools effective atreducing the achievement gap have created alearning community for all" (Maddahian, Fidler,& Hayes, 2006, p. 54) and according to Shermanand Crum (2007), the focus of all school activityshould be to improve student achievement.Therefore, the role of the principal is most criticalto ensure that students from varying culturalbackgrounds are included. Principals must takethe lead and set the tone for student achievement,despite other demands that are faced. So, while itis the responsibility of school environments as awhole to work toward success for all students,principals are the tone setters. Further, specific

principal behaviors often facilitate and indirectlyaffect student learning (Carter, 2000; Hallinger &Heck, 1998).

In a recent Journal for Effective Schools issue,Maddahian, Fidler, and Hayes (2006) recognizedthe importance of considering cultural context inthe educational experiences of students. Whenculture "is taken into account (a) individuals arebetter recognized and are better able to make useof their talents, (b) schools teach and accesschildren better, and (c) society utilizes ratherthan wastes the talents of its members" (p. 51).Culturally competent leaders should use theseprinciples to strive to ensure that students areable to achieve the full range of talent andachievement potential, work with the staff todifferentiate instruction to ensure that all thelearning needs of students are being met, and thatthe unique talents of the students are recognized,encouraged, and fostered.

One of the most important roles of a culturallycompetent leader is to help the staff and theschool community foster new meanings aboutdiversity (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006; Riehl,2000). Principals may consider using TheMiniature Earth1 project as an initial startingpoint for diversity conversations. This websiteshows what the demographics and other charac-teristics of the earth would be if it were brokendown to 100 people. Principals can ask questionssuch as the following:

●● How does the school and community reflectthat of the earth?

●● How can the school infuse more culturallydiverse activities into their daily practices toreflect the cultural diversity of the world asreflected in the project?

●● What concerns do parents and staff haveabout the material presented on the website?

●● What can we do to understand the world'sdemographics and the impact on our school?



53

●● How can we better prepare our students tomeet the demands of a global society that isvery diverse?

Another practical tool available for principals touse to help foster dialogue is the Tolerance.orgwebsite. Principals can explore the TeachingTolerance magazine, available free of charge,about diversity issues in education. Study groupscan be formed which explore key issues identifiedby the school or through this site in an in-depthmanner, with the principal facilitating theprocess. On this site principals can use theHidden Bias2 tool to help staff and parentsexplore hidden biases and learn how stereotypesnegatively impact society. Principals may chooseto refer the staff to this site or to use material onthe page to target specific issues and foster con-versations germane to the school and community.Principals can ask the staff and school to reflecton unspoken biases that may impede the schoolfrom success. These conversations can helpleaders break down barriers within the schools'structures that serve as impediments to culturallydiverse learning environments (Shields &Sayani, 2008; Klotz, 2008). While it is criticalthat leaders foster conversations about dialoguewith the staff and community, it is just as essentialthat leaders participate in a process of self-reflection to critically analyze the current situationand that of the schools (Gardiner & Enomoto,2006). Throughout the process to develop a moreinclusive school environment, administratorsmust continually model and promote inclusivepractices (Gardiner & Enomoto; Riehl, 2000).

Profound levels of change require a commitmentto multifaceted approaches to multiculturalism,as well as actions ingrained in an awareness ofsocial justice for all students. According toLeithwood, Seashore Lewis, Anderson, andWahlstrom (2004), leadership is second only toteaching in affecting student success. Thus,school change is, in many ways, dependent on

the initial efforts that leaders, such as superin-tendents and principals, make to set the tone forhigh achievement for all students. Most likely,this is not being done in schools that fail toground themselves in the initial tenants of goodpractice in the first place such as the Correlates inEffective Schools Research.

Discussion and Practical Implications

Unless progress is made in closing the gap,Black and Hispanic students could be dispropor-tionately harmed by requirements that linktest scores to promotion or graduation . . . Closingthe gap require more than setting standards,giving tests, and identifying which schools didnot reach benchmarks. (Kober, 2001, p. 16)

As student demographics become increasinglydiverse, schools must take a critical look atwhich populations of students benefit fromexisting practices because data show thatequitable educational outcomes are not oftenevident (Gordon, 2006; Erford, House, & Martin,2007). While correlates that lead to success havebeen identified in the Effective SchoolsResearch, these practices have not been success-fully implemented in great scale. BecauseEffective Schools Research and identifiedCorrelates have been proven as effective inschools that enact them, the authors found ithelpful to examine what these Correlates implyfor an increasingly diverse school population andhow they might work to support current calls forculturally competent leadership. Thus, practicalsuggestions have been provided based upon theselected Effective Schools Correlates,Uncompromising Commitment to HighExpectations and Enhanced Communication,combined with what is known about culturallycompetent leadership practices to encourageleadership which promotes an inclusive schoolenvironment that supports success for all students.Readers are encouraged to use these suggestions

54



as potential starting points to changing the focusin schools to inclusive environments that recog-nize the unique and diverse needs of all students.Since these are proffered as a start, it is recog-nized that this is just a small list of the numerouspossibilities to consider when working towardmore effective multicultural leadership practices.

Practicing Administrators

While this component is directed specifically atbuilding level administrators, central office levelleaders can use these suggestions for practice todevelop initiatives at the district level.Additionally, just as the diversity within each ofthe schools is recognized and celebrated, it mustbe recognized that there are no one-size-fits-allsolutions. These recommendations are presentedwith the understanding and intent they will bemodified to fit the unique and individual needs ofeach school.

Leadership for Teaching and Learning. Buildingleaders are uniquely positioned to observe theindividual teaching and learning practices withinthe building. Additionally, they have the abilityto guide the instructional practices used. But,what differentiates those who are leaders in nameand espoused belief only to those who are leadersin action is how knowledge is used to impactstudent success. Principals must take time tocritically evaluate personal leadership practicesfor teaching and learning, and examine whetherleadership actions support the Effective SchoolsCorrelates and support the diverse learning needsof each student.

According to Leithwood, et al. (2004), the build-ing leader sets the direction of the organization,develops people, and redesigns the organization.In order to do this, the leader must model what isexpected of the school community. Expectationsare often a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whileprincipals may want the staff to hold anUncompromising Commitment to High

Expectations for All students and developEnhanced Communications with parents, it isvital that the same be reflected in the leaders'daily practices. Therefore, it is crucial the build-ing leader be reflective of this. The principalmust be visible to the school community, bepositive, and encouraging. Relationships need tobe developed and fostered to promote a climatewhere all students are expected to do well andwhere those expectations are communicatedthroughout the school community. The buildingleader must also set the direction to continuallyalign the curriculum and advocate for theinclusion of multicultural curriculum materials.Principals must also lead the building towards amore mainstreamed focus on including minoritieswho have contributed to society rather than onemonth out of the year only.

Structural changes supporting effective practicesmust be realized in schools and districts to meetthe diverse needs of students. The administrativeteam, guided by the principal, must ensure thereis a diverse representation of the school stake-holders on the School Learning Plan (SLP). TheSLP is a dynamic document used by a school toguide stakeholders toward the desired academic,behavioral, and social directions of the organi-zation. (This is often commonly referred to as aschool improvement plan.) According to Abbate-Vaughn (2006), "86 percent of those pursuing acareer in teaching are White . . . Current researchindicates that fewer than six percent of thosegraduating from education programs wish towork in under-served, multicultural urban settings"(pp. 2-3). The disproportionate number of Whiteteachers compared to the student populationsthey serve is of particular concern because somebelieve that White individuals are less able torelate to minority students (Yeh & Aurora, 2003).Principals may consider employing the use ofcultural sensitivity training as a technique todevelop an environment supportive of multicul-tural education. Additionally, principals andschool districts must make a concerted effort to



55

actively recruit minority teacher candidates orgrow their own through establishing FutureTeacher of America Clubs at the middle and highschool levels. The status quo will continue torepeat itself if actions are not taken to increasethe number of teachers of color to become morealigned with student demographics.

School Learning Plan. The administrative team,guided by the principal, must ensure there is adiverse representation of the school stakeholderson the SLP committee. Changes can not takeplace unless a broad constituency of stakeholdersrepresentative all of student groups are includedin the change effort, including translating theprocess in an understandable manner and findingways to make it meaningful (Riehl, 2000). Themembers should be selected with care and con-sideration. While individuals should have theopportunity to volunteer, school leaders shouldalso actively search and recruit people who willbring a rich background to the discussions.Effective Schools Research has statisticallyshown the impact of parental involvement instudents' education (Lee & Bowman, 2006;Jeynes, 2007). It is vital, then, that parents be anintegral part of the SLP team.

Schools are not stagnant institutions. Change,whether planned or not, occurs continuously. TheSLP must be a living document that can berevisited and revised at any time. Data-drivenleadership and schools that reflect upon theunique and diverse needs of students must have afluid SLP that can be revised in order to meet thechanging academic, behavioral, and social needsof the students. While it is necessary to set highexpectations, those expectations must reflect thereal needs and goals of the school.

The language used in the SLP provides tangibledirections for the users of the document and theSLP should reflect an air of optimism and highexpectations. The message set forth in the SLP

will help direct the tone of the school. Therefore,it must be reflective of the goals of a culturallycompetent school vying for success with allstudents.

School-Community Committee. A School-Community Committee (SCC) can be a powerfulcomponent of a successful inclusive school. Thiscollaborative and active committee developed atthe school level involves all stakeholders andlooks at how the school can successfully utilizeavailable resources, as well how to provideservices back to the community. Parentalinvolvement and communication have beenidentified as key correlates to a school's success.The SCC can be directly involved in garneringthe support of parents, as well as identifying howto better communicate with the families ofstudents and actively involve them in the school.

Several of the strategies implemented in effec-tive schools in the research look at how schoolscan be a part of the students' communities, ratherthan expecting the community to simply becomea part of the school. This promotes a symbioticrelationship which further encourages parentalinclusion in the schooling process. Meetings canbe held in the communities to gain stakeholderbuy-in and determine, through consensus, areasneeding improvement.

Another service to garner parental support andcommunication found in some of the researchreviewed in this paper was the use of a parentingcenter. This resource should be made available tothe families of students within the school. Thiscenter can be staffed by parents and be open afterschool hours during afternoons and evenings.The parenting center can offer tutoring servicesfor families in, at a minimum, reading andmathematics. The SCC can solicit the specificneeds of the families and provide courses andmaterials to the families in the center. The centercan sponsor parent-teacher meetings and can

56



coordinate these meetings to be held, at times,within the actual communities rather than at theschool.

Higher Education Institutions

Recent literature has been highly critical of lead-ership preparation programs (Levine, 2005; Hess& Kelley, 2005). It has been argued these pro-grams are out of touch with the current needs ofthe local school districts and are not adequatelypreparing future generations of highly qualifiedleaders. While the authors are not debating themerits of these arguments within the domain ofthis manuscript, suggestions are provided forhigher education institutions that can strengthentheir programs based upon the overall purpose ofthis article. Responding to criticism or not, pro-grams must be in a continuous cycle of analysis,reflection, and revision in order to remain currentwith the needs of their varied constituents,including the leadership preparation students,districts, communities, and ultimately the P-12students.

Curriculum. Jackson and Kelley (2002) foundthat exceptional leadership programs had well-defined curriculum. Faculty must be able to read-ily articulate the integral components of the pro-gram of study, including how culturally compe-tent leadership is integrated throughout the pro-gram, as well as the research on EffectiveSchools. Additionally, the faculty need to pro-vide students with skills that will enable them topractically apply the Effective SchoolsCorrelates as culturally competent leaders withinthe schools.

This requires the faculty to work in a collabo-rative manner to develop syllabi, course activities,and identify the readings being using. This is nota move to stifle academic autonomy and freedom,but, instead, is reflective of expectations thatfull-time and adjunct faculty work together just

as P-12 administrators and teachers work togetherin a collaborative manner to ensure success forall students.

Collaborative University-District Partnerships.While university faculty may work together todevelop a cohesive curriculum, any educationalleadership program will fall short of meeting theneeds of students without collaboration fromlocal school districts As noted by Jackson andKelley (2002), collaborative partnershipsbetween universities and school districts are anintegral component of successful leadershippreparation programs. When preparing futureteachers to work with a diverse array of students,the program must develop a course of study thataddresses the demographics of the districtsserved and the needs identified by those divi-sions.

For example, courses can use authentic statisticsfrom the localities to disaggregate data anddevelop intervention plans which incorporateEffective Schools Correlates. While developedwithin the scope of the classroom, the problem-based learning projects can translate into real andmeaningful solutions for the districts. The stu-dents may be able to identify new and inventiveways to enhance communication between theschools and parents that can be implemented inthe district. Or, they may be able to identifypractices that are counter-productive to settinghigh levels of expectations and can suggestsolutions for staff to better set achievement goalswith their students. Regardless, students are pro-vided opportunities to explore real-life problemswithin the schools and to develop strategies toenhance the school environments.

University-district collaboration can also takethe form of K-16 partnerships to help promotecollege enrollment. This can begin to provide aK-16 learning environment and a seamlesstransition from K-12 to higher education. Dual



57

enrollment programs and Advanced Placementcourses can be offered to students for the specificpurposes of supporting minority students, andparticularly for those groups of students who tra-ditionally drop out. Mentors (faculty and staff inK-12 and in higher education, as well as mentorsfrom the community and business partners) cansupport students in these programs, check in withthem to see what assistance they require on anon-going basis, and provide guidance as needed.

Internships. Looking further at authentic oppor-tunities that connect theory to practice forleadership students, particular attention shouldbe directed toward internship opportunitiesavailable to students. "The internship experienceis one of the most crucial elements of leadershippreparation programs for bridging the gapbetween theory and practice" (Sherman & Crum,2007, p. 5). Therefore, it must be ensured thatprograms, based on sound multiculturalprinciples and Effective Schools Research, areenabling students the chance to integrate classbased experiences into field-based practices.

This can be done, in part, by coordinating theinternship experiences so students work in avariety of settings and with diverse student pop-ulations. Activities that are planned for theinternship can be specifically designed to addressand implement the seven Correlates of EffectiveSchools. For example, a student may be requiredto identify areas where the school is failing tomeet the communication needs of the parents anddevelop interventions that are tailored specificallyat increasing school-home communication.These activities can be grounded in the research(including the studies reviewed in the previoussections). Students need to be consistentlyexposed to the literature base to ground internshippractices in research-based effective practices.

Internships should not be limited to the sameacademic setting and background of the intern.

For example, the common practice of allowingthe intern to complete the required number ofhours within her or his own school setting isincredibly limiting. The diversity needs, levels ofexpectations, and forms of communication usedin this setting may be vastly different from thesetting where the student may ultimately serve asan administrator, leaving the individual drasticallyunder prepared as a leader.

As integral to the setting is the use of well-qualified and trained mentor(s). District-levelmentors work with the student/mentee and theuniversity to ensure the experiences are meetingthe requirements outlined by the leadershippreparation program. The university shouldprovide in-depth training on how to be a goodmentor and appropriately guide the menteethroughout the myriad of field-based experi-ences. Mentors should be selected from a diverseschool and ethnic background, as well.

While only a few of the many possibilities toframe building-level practices and developleadership preparation programs have beenpresented, it provides a starting point to fostermore conversations about how to craft leadershippractices that will promote success for all students.The suggestions require leaders to be more intro-spective and critical, as well as involve moreindividuals in the schooling process. Further,they demand that universities eliminate isola-tionist tendencies that keep school districts andfaculty colleagues from working together in acollaborative manner.

Conclusion

The demographic make-up of U.S. publicschools is rapidly changing (Gardiner &Enomoto, 2006; Lim & A'Ole-Boune, 2005;Marbley, et al., 2007; Meyer & Rhoades, 2006;Reitmumetse & Madsen, 2005). Predictionsindicate that by the year 2020, the majority of the

58



students in the public schools will be children ofcolor (Gardiner & Enomoto; Marbley, et al.;Meyer & Rhoades). Unfortunately, though,historically low-performing groups continue tounder perform, in spite of the heightenedawareness of the diverse needs of the studentpopulation. Proven Correlates, such asUncompromising Commitment to HighExpectations for All and EnhancedCommunication, in the Effective SchoolsResearch have been demonstrated to increasestudent educational outcomes.

It is imperative that culturally competent leadersuse these Correlates in widespread practice toensure high academic achievement and successfor all students. Changes within the building thatspread to the surrounding communities must beput into action. It is not enough to call on prin-cipals alone to spearhead changes. Just as criticalis the need for higher education institutions todesign cohesive leadership programs which takeinto account the many facets of culturally com-petent leadership, as well as sound effectivepractices to promote student learning. While rec-ommendations have been provided for changesin practice at the K-12 and higher educationlevels, it is vital that more action be taken tocritically evaluate the level of multiculturalinclusiveness within the educational setting andmake the necessary changes to ensure equitableeducation for all students.

Further questions to explore in light of the callfor a critical approach to multicultural leadershipinclude the following:

●● Why do current leadership preparation cur-ricula fail to adequately prepare leaders towork in a multicultural setting based on bestpractices found in the literature, such as theEffective Schools Research?

●● How are future leaders being trained to workwith staff and students whose cultural backgrounds are dissimilar?

●● What is preventing a more culturally diversecurriculum based upon best practices in theliterature from being implemented in the K-12 curriculum?

●● Why are current teaching candidates non-reflective of the K-12 student body?

Student demographics continue to change thelandscape of K-12 education and the call forculturally competent leadership is becoming ashout for critical multiculturalism. Successfulschool leadership in the 21st Century must bebased upon what has been found to work inschools−−effective practices such as setting highexpectations for all students, enhanced commu-nication, and an awareness of and responsivenessto the diverse backgrounds and needs of allstudents.

References

Abbate-Vaughn, J. (2006). Multiculturalism in teacher education: What to assess, for how long, with what expected outcomes? Electronic Magazine of Multicultural Education, 8(2), 1-12. Retrieved September 3, 2007, from http://www.eastern.edu/publications/emme/2006fall/abbate-vaughn.pdf

Bailey, D. F., Getch, Y. Q., & Chen-Hayes, S. F.(2007). Achievement advocacy for all students through transformative school counseling programs. In B. T. Erford (Ed.), Transforming the school counseling profession (2nd ed., pp. 98-120). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Bennett, C. I. (2007). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice(6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Brown, K. E., & Medway, F. J. (2007, May). School climate and teacher beliefs in a school effectively serving poor South Carolina (USA) African-American students: A case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 529-540.



59

Carter, S. C. (2000). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty schools.Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.

Condley, S. J. (2006). Resilience in children: Areview of literature with implications for education. Urban Education, 41(3), 211-236.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: Creating a blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Day-Vines, N. L., & Day-Hairston, B. O. (2005). Culturally congruent strategies for addressing the behavioral needs of urban, African American male adolescents. Professional School Counseling, 8, 236-243.

Duke, D. L. (2007). Keys to sustaining successful school turnarounds. Charlottesville, VA: Darden-Curry Partnerships for Leaders in Education.

Erford, B. T., House, R. M., & Martin, P. J. (2007). Transforming the school counseling profession. In B. T. Erford (Ed.), Transforming the school counseling profession (2nd ed., pp. 1-12). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gardiner, M. E., & Enomoto, E. K. (2006, November). Urban school principals and their role as multicultural leaders. Urban Education, 41(6), 560-584.

Goddard, R. D., Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K.(2000, December). Academic emphasis of urban elementary schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: Amultilevel analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 683-702.

Gordon, E. W. (2006). Establishing a system of public education in which all children achieve at high levels and reach their full potential. In T. Smiley (Ed.), The covenant with Black America (pp. 23-45). Chicago, IL:Third World Press.

Grothaus, T., & Crum, K. S. (2008). Effective leadership in a culturally diverse environment. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Growe, R., Schmersahl, K., Perry, R., & Henry, R. (2002). A knowledge base for cultural

diversity in administrator training. Journal ofInstructional Psychology, 29(3), 205-212.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. SchoolEffectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-191.

Henig, J. R., Hula, R. C., Orr, M., & Pedescleaux, D. S. (1999). The color of school reform: Race, politics, and the challenge of urban education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2005, Summer). The accidental principal: What doesn't get taught at ed schools? Education Next, 5(3). Available at: http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3219521.html

Hess, G. A., Jr. (1999). Expectations, opportunity, capacity, and will: The four essential components of Chicago school reform. Educational Policy, 13, 494-517.

Hines, P. L., & Fields, T. H. (2004) School counseling and academic achievement. In R. Perusse & G. E. Goodnough (Eds.), Leadership, advocacy, and direct service strategies for professional school counselors(pp. 3-33). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, A. W. (2006, Fall). Academic optimism of schools: A forcefor student achievement. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 43(3), 425-446.

Jackson, B. L., & Kelley, C. (2002, April). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 38(2), 192-212.

Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press.

Jeynes, W. H. (2007, January). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82-110.

Kaplan, L. S., & Owings, W. A. (2007, Fall). Making our schools effective. Journal for Effective Schools, 6(2), 5-13.

60



Kelley, C., Heneman H., III, & Milanowski, A. (2002, August). Teacher motivation and school-based performance awards. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(3),372-401.

Kim, J. J., & Crasco, L. M. (2006). Best policies and practices in urban educational reform: A summary of empirical analysis focusing on student achievement and equity. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 11(1), 19-37.

Klotz, M. B. (2008). Culturally competent schools: Guidelines for secondary school principals. In J. H. Munro (Ed.), Roundtable viewpoints: Educational leadership (pp. 280-286). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kober, N. (2001). It takes more than testing: Closing the achievement gap. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 454358)

Lee, J., & Bowen, N. K. (2006, Summer). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 193-218.

Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Toronto, Ontario:Center for Applied Research and EducationalImprovement and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Levine, A. (2005). Education school leaders. Washington, DC: Education Schools Project. Available at http://www.edschools.org/reports_leaders.htm

Lewis, A. (2001). There is no "race" in the schoolyard: Color-blind ideology in an (almost) all-White school. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 38(4), 781-811.

Lim, C., & A'Ole-Boune, H. (2005). Diversity competencies within early childhood teacher preparation: Innovative practices and future directions. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26, 225-238.

Maddahian, E., Fidler, P., & Hayes, K. (2006). Effective school-teacher practices: Case studies of the achievement gap between African American and White students. Journal for Effective Schools, 5(1), 35-60.

Marbley, A. F., Bonner, F. A., McKisick, S., Henfield, M. S., & Watts, L. M. (2007). Interfacing culture specific pedagogy with counseling: A proposed diversity training model for preparing preservice teachers for diverse learners. Multicultural Education, 14(3), 8-16.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Meyer, C. F., & Rhoades, E. K. (2006). Multiculturalism: Beyond food, festival, folklore, and fashion. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(2), 82-87.

O'Connor, E., & McCartney, K. (2007, June). Examining teacher-child relationships and achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 340-369.

Reitumetse, O. M., & Madsen, J. A. (2005). 'Color-blind' and 'color-conscious' leadership:A case study of desegregated suburban schools in the USA. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8, 182-206.

Riehl, C. J. (2000, Spring). The principal's role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55-81.

Sherman, W. H. (2007, August 31). No child left behind: A legislative catalyst for superintendent action to eliminate test score gaps? Educational Policy, doi: 10.1177/0895904807307063, first published online, in cue for print, 2008.

Sherman, W. H., & Crum, K. (2007). Student achievement, principal catalysts:



61

Instructional leadership in reading. International Journal for Educational Reform, 16(4).

Sherman, W. H., & Grogan, M. (2003). Superintendents' responses to the achievement gap: An ethical critique. International Journal for Leadership in Education, 6(3), 223-237.

Shields, C. M., & Sayani, A. (2008). Leading inthe midst of diversity: The challenge of our times. In F. W. English (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice (pp. 380-402). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Singham, M. (1998). The canary in the mine: The achievement gap between Black and White students. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(1), 8-15.

Starratt, R. J. (1994). Building an ethical school: A practical response to the moral crisis in schools. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

Stewart, E. B. (2008, January). School structuralcharacteristics, student effort, peer associations, and parental involvement: The influence of school- and individual-level factors on academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 40(2), 179-204.

Viadero, D. (2000, March 22). Lags in minority achievement defy traditional expectations. Education Week, 19(28), 1-8.

Waxman, H. C., & Huang, S. L. (1997). Classroom instruction and learning environment differences between effective and ineffective urban elementary schools for African-American students. Urban Education, 32, 7-44.

Yeh, C. J., & Aurora, A. K. (2003). Multicultural training and interdependent andindependent self-construal as predictors of universal-diverse orientation among school counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81, 78-83.

End Notes

1. This project can be accessed at http://www.miniature-earth.com/

2. The Southern Poverty Law Center website at www.tolerance.org and the Hidden Biases toolcan be accessed at http://www.tolerance.org/hidden_bias/index.html

Karen S. Crum is an Assistant Professor in theDepartment of Educational Leadership andCounseling at Darden College of Education. Herareas of specialization are data disaggregation,leadership for teaching and learning, and leader-ship preparation. Whitney H. Sherman is anAssistant Professor in the Department ofEducational Leadership at VirginiaCommonwealth University. Her areas of special-ization are women in leadership, leadershippreparation and mentoring, and social justice andequity.

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Dr. Karen S. Crum, AssistantProfessor in the Department of EducationalLeadership and Counseling at Darden College ofEducation, Room 110, Old Dominion University,Norfolk, Virginia, 23529.Email: [email protected]

62


William G. Cunningham & Whitney H. Sherman

Educational leadership internships are typicallyfocused at the school level where opportunitiesto affect the most change abound when strivingto improve schools. The early work of Lezotte(1988, 1994), Edmonds (1979), Brookover andLezotte (1979) and others stressed the impor-tance of the school building as the focal point forchange and established the research-practiceconnections that, many of which, have resultedin increased student achievement. Thoseinvolved in the preparation of school leadersunderstand that the mission of principals must beto facilitate an effective school environmentwhere all children learn. The internship providesan opportunity for principals and aspiring leadersto model and engage in behavior that directlyinfluences student achievement (Blasé & Blasé,2003). These influences, many of which aresupported in Effective Schools Research,include: instructional leadership; setting highexpectations; establishing safe and orderly

climates; providing opportunities to learn forall; enacting a strong curriculum; engaging inteaching and assessment procedures; communi-cating a school mission; and facilitating positiverelationships between the school, home, andcommunity. Importantly, these Correlates shouldnot only be the espoused beliefs of future leaders,but should also be effectively implemented.

The challenge of providing consistent andvisionary direction to enable schools to achievegoals related to student learning is no easy feat,and, thus, the need for providing ongoingopportunities for professional development forpracticing and aspiring leaders has been stressed.Yet, while the responsibilities attached to theprincipalship have expanded in the last decade, acommon concern is that principal preparationprograms have not kept pace and remain devoidof an authentic base, providing course work thatis too theoretical and unrelated to the actual

Internships: Building Contextual Relevancy for Improved Instruction

William G. CunninghamOld Dominion University

Whitney H. ShermanVirginia Commonwealth University

Abstract

The internship, as part of the preparation of school leaders, provides an opportunity for principalsand aspiring leaders to model and engage in behaviors that directly influence student achievement.These influences, many of which are supported in Effective Schools Research, include: instructionalleadership; setting high expectations; establishing safe and orderly climates; providing opportunitiesto learn for all; enacting a strong curriculum; engaging in teaching and assessment procedures;communicating a school mission; and facilitating positive relationships between the school, home,and community. Importantly, these Correlates should not only be the espoused beliefs of futureleaders, but should also be effectively enacted. The following essay makes a case for the importanceof practical experiences woven through the internship during leadership development and calls foreven greater authenticity and connection of theory to practice grounded in the tenants of EffectiveSchools Research.



63

practice of administration. As a result, candidatesfor the principalship do not develop the practicalknowledge necessary to enact important under-lying leadership values, which has contributed tointense criticism of preparation programs.According to Levine (2005),

Some observers have expressed seriousreservations about whether these institutionsare capable of re-engineering their leadershippreparation programs to effectively educateaspiring principals and superintendents tolead high performing schools . . . . The typicalcourse of study for the principalship has littleto do with the job of being a principal. (p. 5)

Critical leadership practices include settingdirection, helping individual teachers, settinghigh expectations, fostering collaboration, pro-viding evaluation and assessment, and providingleadership and support (Leithwood & Jantzi,2005). These expectations require administratorsto have a coherent and clear set of values, manyof which are correlated to those identifiedthrough the Effective Schools Research. Futureeducational leaders must be well equipped tomeet the ever increasing demands placed uponschools. The internship is one of the mostimportant opportunities to develop and learnthis diverse range of knowledge, skills, and dis-positions.

A hopeful trend for improvement in preparationhas been the refinement of traditional intern-ships. Field experiences should be viewed as theprimary vehicle for learning, with courseworkdesigned to support the learning that occurs inthe field rather than vice versa (Cunningham,2007; Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Daresh,2004; Ehrich, Hansford, & Tennant, 2004).Hence, all classroom experiences should beembedded in or situated within the context ofpractice. Field experiences and problems ofpractice should be seamlessly integrated into

educational leadership curricula with the purposeof providing content knowledge aimed towardthe improvement of practice. Knowledge in andof itself does not lead to school improvement. Acyclical process where knowledge directs actionand action directs knowledge is worth a greatdeal more.

According to Cunningham (2007), successfulinternships have the following characteristics:

●● Require the intern to assume responsibilityfor authentic opportunities or tasks

●● Require the intern to develop knowledge andskills that are applicable across diverse settings

●● Include practice-based experiences that arealigned to cover the Interstate School LeadersLicensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards orthe standards being used in the intern's pro-gram of study

●● Connect theory and practice in a realistic andefficient way

●● Are feasible and sustainable within all par-ties' work schedules

●● Provide openness and access to whatever isneeded to complete activities

●● Ensure that activities prepare interns to assumeadministrative roles with competence andconfidence

Interns need assistance to negotiate the nature ofthe first formal leadership experiences, the typesof efforts required, the activities through whichthe greatest benefit can be gained, and the neededdocumentation and structured reflections thatallow for growth and continuous development,ultimately resulting in improved leadershipcapacity (Cunningham, 2007). The most effec-tive way to gain an understanding of the rigorsof the position of the principal is to take on lead-ership responsibilities as an intern throughplanned opportunities negotiated by districts anduniversities.

64



Promoting Instructional Leadership

Traditionally, the focus of leadership preparationhas been on school management and safetyissues. While these are crucial to student success,these types of management tasks are no longerenough in an age of accountability. Instead, anemphasis must be placed on tasks that comple-ment what has been learned from the EffectiveSchools movement including instructional lead-ership, school improvement, and studentachievement−−historically overlooked aspectsof university internships and preparation.Instructional leadership involves the strategicapplication of knowledge to solve context specif-ic problems and to achieve the purposes ofschooling through others. According to Cantanoand Stronge (2006),

The stress today is on instructional leadershipand student performance. Principals arebeing asked to incorporate practices that areresponsive to the most crucial needs of theirschools with regard to raising studentachievement−−the most essential instructionalleadership task. (p. 227)

Duttweiler (1988, 1990) completed a review ofliterature related to instructional leadership andstudent learning and developed a comprehensiveview of what constitutes effective schools.According to Duttweiler, effective schools havethe following characteristics:

●● Center on students●● Offer academically rich programs●● Provide instruction that promotes student

learning●● Have a positive school climate●● Foster collegial interaction●● Provide extensive staff development●● Practice shared leadership●● Foster creative problem solving●● Involve parents and community

Furthermore, increased student achievement isdriven by asking tough questions, setting highand achievable academic goals, maintainingorderly learning environments, encouragingteachers' beliefs in students' abilities to achieve,modeling respect for hard work and academicachievement, setting a standard for friendlinessand a commitment to all stakeholders, makingsupplies and instructional materials readilyavailable, holding informal and formal conver-sations about school issues with stakeholders,recognizing and rewarding teacher efforts,creating opportunities for progressive profes-sional growth, finding time to share information,supporting teachers' use of new skills, creatingincentives for student learning, honoring studentsfor accomplishments and good citizenship,acknowledging teacher professionalism, andcreating professional learning communities.

However, according to Sherman andCunningham (2006), administrative internsreport spending the majority of work time han-dling discipline and testing issues, indicating thatuniversity faculty and district mentors need towork together to broaden experiences for interns.While learning the daily tasks of an adminis-trator is important, it is also vital, in an age thatdemands that the needs of all children be met, forleaders to be prepared in implementing changeand leading transformation. The big picture isnot often gained when the internship experienceis focused only on daily issues of school man-agement.

Collaboration Between Universities andSchool Districts

The emphasis on contextual relevance andinstructional leadership is best achieved throughwell-designed internship experiences with col-laboration between universities and school dis-tricts. Students recognize the importance ofmentoring and often describe the need for more



65

experience or on-the-job training. Current lead-ership demands require that learning be embed-ded within the context of practice to allow for theintegration of knowledge and experience in realworld settings. This places greater emphasis onmaking knowledge to practice connections andproviding students opportunities to work on realworld problems in authentic settings under theguidance of university faculty and experiencedpractitioners.

Clinical activities led by practicing administra-tors and university coaches that are planned andarranged, prove to be meaningful learning oppor-tunities and experiences that interns highly valueand that lead to "a stronger pipeline of effectiveschool administrators" (Pounder & Crow, 2005,p. 57). However, clinical activities led by prac-ticing administrators alone are not often wellcoordinated with or integrated into universitypreparation programs. The internship requiresthe strengths of both academics and practitionersto mold opportunities for experiences that can bemost effective for future leadership practice.According to Young (2007), in a UCEA confer-ence opening address,

Ultimately our success will depend upon theinterconnected work of universities, practi-tioners, professional associations, and statepolicy makers. There is an important need toopen the lines of communication and to elim-inate the disconnects. (n.p.)

Traditionally, district and university groups sel-dom meet with one another, and, if they do, itis only on an informal basis, usually for infor-mation sharing purposes. A more formal struc-ture is needed if the key players ever hope todevelop the reciprocal understanding and supportcritical to principal preparation. Representativesfrom both groups might meet on a regular basisand act as an advisory group for the internshipprocess and to shape policy and practice

regarding preparation and seamless on-the-jobtraining. Participating districts and universitiesmust agree to negotiate the nature of the projectsand a host of related practical issues such as: thelength of the project; the cooperation of variousentities including the faculty, union represen-tatives, the principal, the district superintendent,the school board, and parents; ethical principlesthat might constrain the project; and ways ofmanaging internship assignments or projectsthat will not unduly interfere with other schoolprocesses (Pounder & Crow, 2005). Other col-laborative tasks identified by Pounder and Crow(2005), included the following:

●● Identifying and recruiting candidates forleadership roles

●● Providing input on educational leadershipcurriculum

●● Involving both university faculty and practi-tioners in teaching and co-teaching

●● Conducting formative and summative (cul-minating) evaluations

●● Supporting paid internship programs for stu-dents

●● Encouraging outstanding teachers with licen-sure to take on leadership roles

●● Integrating district leadership academies anduniversity programs (p. 58)

Mentoring

There is wide support that those seeking growthin leadership will profit from the mentoringprocess (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Crow& Matthews, 1998; Daresh, 1992, 1995, 2003,2004; Ehrich, 1995; Ehrich, Hansford, &Tennent, 2004; Fleming, 1991; Gardiner,Enomoto, & Grogan, 2000; Hubbard &Robinson, 1998; Kram, 1985; Luebkemann &Clemens, 1992; Matters, 1994; Mertz, 2004;Playko, 1995; Sherman, 2005; Southworth,1995; Winn, 1993). The process is a form ofsocialization (Daresh, 2004; Browne-Ferrigno,

66



2003) that exists under the belief that the practicewill ultimately be beneficial to all partiesinvolved. Browne-Ferrigno and Muth found thatinternship experiences and working with mentors"serve as effective professional development notonly for aspiring and novice principals but alsofor veteran principals" (p. 471). The benefitsextend not only to mentors and mentees, but todistricts that engage in the practice. The endresult is a more capable staff where learningcommunities are developed to establish a cultureof continuous learning and greater productivity(Daresh).

A well-designed internship program can ensurethat most potential educational leaders have aneffective mentoring experience through thecareful matching of mentors and mentees. One ofthe primary causes of a failure of an effectiveinternship experience is a lack of mutual agree-ment as to the perspectives, roles, and process ofmentoring (Mertz, 2004). The mismatch betweenleadership styles of practicing and future admin-istrators can also be problematic. Poor relation-ships create incompatibility and divergence fromtrust, rapport, communication, advocacy, and theoverall quality of the leadership experience.However, despite concerns that surroundmentoring, it is typically an overwhelminglypositive learning experience for mentors,mentees, and school districts alike (Hansford,Tennet, & Ehrich, 2003).

The Hay Group's McClellan Center for Researchand Innovation reported that effective mentoringand coaching is directly related to effectiveleadership and, specifically, one's leadershipstyle (Spreier, Fontaine, & Malloy, 2006).Ineffective mentor leaders focus on the pressureto produce, heroic effort, production, and oftenpersonalize power, which is not conducive tolong-term mentee development. In contrast,effective mentors are those leaders who arevisionary, affiliate, participative, and believe

strongly in the coaching and long-term devel-opment of mentees. Effective mentors focus onincreasing the capability of the school organi-zation as a whole by increasing the competenceof the overall staff and by preparing the nextgeneration of leaders.

Building Leadership Confidence andCompetence

One important benefit of the internship is that itallows interns to develop belief and confidencein personal capabilities as school leaders.Participants have reported that internship experi-ences gave them confidence as future leaders andthat the opportunity to practice and engage inauthentic leadership tasks helped to ease thetransition from the classroom to leadership roles(Sherman & Cunningham, 2006). Interns needopportunities to apply what they have learnedthrough coursework to real-world experiences inschools. It is through field-based experiences thatfuture educational administrators can make theessential connections that must be forgedbetween Effective Schools Research and pro-fessional practice.

Those who have participated in internships aremore likely to take state licensure exams, obtainstate administrative and supervision certification(endorsement), and interview for positions ineducational administration (Browne-Ferrigno &Muth, 2004). These students have consistentlybeen more motivated to obtain administrativepositions once they have completed their prepa-ration programs because of having developedleadership competence through practice in theinternship and leadership in practice. They have,in essence, learned to handle all types of situa-tions, including those that are ambiguous andchaotic. As one student stated, "It's a goodchance to get your hands dirty and learn whatyou're made of." In short, the internship gives theintern the confidence to walk into a leadership



67

position feeling prepared, regardless of whatchallenges may lay ahead (Cunningham, 2007).

New Directions for Improved Internships

Responding to calls for change in leadershippreparation requires attention to both programdelivery and content. Internship experiencesfocus on contextual relevance and the art ofapplication and help those involved in leadershippreparation to bridge the gap between theory andpractice. As the number of internship hoursrequired for leadership certification increasesnationwide, universities need to consider cre-ative ways to meet these requirements. Equallyimportant is the design of various types offorums to allow students to reflect upon experi-ences and to reappraise feelings, beliefs,practices, ideas, values, and how these mightinfluence behavior.

Research on Effective Schools and effectiveprincipals linking specific Correlates to studentachievement offers insights that allow for theimprovement of internship experiences thatstudents receive, particularly in regard to instruc-tional leadership (Blasé & Blasé, 1998;Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Hopkins, & Harris,2006). Instructional leadership involves thestrategic application of knowledge to solve con-text-specific problems and to achieve the purposesof schooling through others. Although theproblems that face instructional leaders arenumerous and the contexts in which instructionalleaders operate diverse, the argument has beenmade (Krug, 1992a; Krug, 1992b) that instruc-tional leadership can be understood in sevenbroad dimensions: organizational culture; aca-demic emphasis; affiliation; resource support;learning incentives; communication; and profes-sional development (Cunningham & Nunnery,2007).

The focus is on the identification of key instruc-tional leadership variables that have been proven

to have positive links to student achievement.Educational internships should include theseleadership activities that have been found to havea direct relationship with effective schools andstudent achievement including the following(Cunningham and Nunnery, 2007):

1. Organizational Culture __ Developing beliefsand values that guide the activities and mem-bers of the school; delineating the vision, mis-sion, goals, and belief/guiding principles ofthe organization; developing a shared sense ofpurpose; creating shared responsibility for thepurpose and school-wide goals; obtainingstaff input; developing and communicatingshared mission, values, goals, and decisionswhich are based on student achievement.

2. Academic Emphasis __ Focusing the school onstudent achievement; developing beliefs in thestudents' ability to achieve; supporting collab-oration and focusing on instructional strategiesand best practices as applied to instruction;ensuring non-instructional interruptions arelimited or eliminated; monitoring studentprogress; providing appropriate instruction;ensuring decisions are made in the best aca-demic interest of students; monitoring data;providing professional development; andensuring teachers are knowledgeable andshare curriculum, instructional strategy, andcommon assessments.

3. Affiliation __ Developing a sense of trust, sup-port, and commitment among the instructionalstaff; taking the initiative to get to know staffand encourage staff to get to know one-another;supporting a sense of enthusiasm and commit-ment; setting a positive climate; developingstaff commitment to their jobs; acknowledgingaccomplishments; actively listening to one-another; and celebrating and rewarding teacher'sefforts.

4. Resource Support __ Providing needed resourcesto improve staff's ability to meet goals (forexample, curriculum guides, science materials,internet access and appropriate technology,

68



content-based manipulatives, sufficient mate-rials, textbooks, teacher's guides, pens, paper,and time); making resources readily availableto support achievement of goals; and pro-viding time for planning and instruction.

5. Learning Incentives __ Providing a systematicprocess for recognizing and rewarding theaccomplishments of students; freely commu-nicating student recognitions to staff, parents,and students; discussing student academicprogress using the results of assessments;monitoring student progress; publicly awardingachievements; staying ahead of research; lim-iting interruptions of instructional time;encouraging teacher support of students; andpromoting current curriculum, instruction,assessment, and best practices.

6. Communication __ Establishing a systematic,two-way communication process to ensure allstaff share information needed to do their job;encouraging staff to share thoughts and ideasin a non-threatening environment; making fre-quent visits to classrooms to walk-thru andidentify areas of strength and opportunities forimprovement as it relates to instruction; beinghighly visible throughout the school andtouching base with each staff member through-out the week (for example, classroom visits/observations, open-door policy, clear commu-nication process, easily accessible, providesteachers opportunities to communicate witheach other); projecting a positive attitude; pro-viding parents and community with comm-unication process; maintaining high visibility;and discussing school issues.

7. Professional Development __ Promoting con-tinuous, on-going, and job-embedded profes-sional development for all staff (for example,lesson study, peer observations, examiningstudent work, portfolios, national board certi-fication process, self-assessment, goal setting,book study, performance observations, profes-sional development committee, and mentoring);providing learning opportunities for staff based

on identified needs; providing follow-upsupport; offering opportunities that are mean-ingful and directly relate to jobs/positions;providing opportunities to contribute to thechoices of professional development that isoffered; and participating in the professionaldevelopment offerings along side of the staff.

These types of activities can be used to measurethe instructional leadership behaviors of internsand the ability to influence student achievement.They provide a profile of performance on variousdimensions of instructional leadership related tostudent achievement and effective schools.

Interns are not finished products; they are leadersunder construction. Continuous improvement iswhat leadership is all about and, in turn, what thefocus of the internship should be and why it issuch an important part of educational leadershipprograms. While internships are a long standingpart of preparation programs, there is much roomfor improvement. Enhancing the contextualrelevancy of internships and focusing them moreon instructional leadership and Effective SchoolsResearch, providing tighter relationshipsbetween mentors and interns, and developingleadership confidence are crucial for internshipsthat will promote transformation and change.Situated in the improvement/expansion of intern-ships are key questions that should be consideredfor improvement:

●● How will contextual relevancy, real worldexperience, and field work be a part of prepa-ration programs?

●● What will be done to include more instruc-tional leadership activities (to improve studentachievement) within the internship andpreparation program?

●● How will the interconnection among the col-leges of education, school district practitioners,policymakers, and professional associationsbe improved?



69

●● How will mentoring and coaching skills bedeveloped so that mentors engage and sup-port mentees in professional developmentand serve as catalysts for interns?

●● What is needed to create the essential supportnetwork, rapport, communication, and advo-cacy among participants?

●● How will conditions be created that are neededfor interns to best extract meaning, know-ledge, and skill from their activities?

●● How will the interns' activities be plannedand documented?

●● What are the essential elements of an intern-ship course that students will need to reflectand internalize, in order to articulate whatthey have learned and to insure this know-ledge is meaningful?

●● How will the intern re-affirm his/her code ofethics?

●● How will you know student efforts wereeffective and appropriate based on authenticperformance data and that they met the instr-uctor's, mentor's, and district's expectations?

Internships are powerful learning tools for stu-dents and, as times have changed, preparationprograms have been called to raise the level ofpractical experiences to be able to continue toprovide the best opportunities for future educa-tional leaders to develop, test, and improve skills.The internship allows interns and principals towork together to better promote academic successfor all students by identifying if critical instruc-tional support practices are present. Theinternship combined with Effective SchoolsResearch helps define what instructional leader-ship should look like in practice and providedirection as to the degree to which the conditionsexist. Internship activities can be used to identifythe strengths and weaknesses of the intern thatare believed to be directly related to studentachievement.

This process might be called a right of passage inthat future leaders learn who they are and how to

continuously develop themselves as well as oth-ers, so that they may best serve effective schoolsand students. Such passages or life transitions arechallenges and opportunities of the highest order.As Owings and Kaplan (2003) concluded in awork on best practices, a ". . . principal's focus ison teaching, learning, and leadership. They useall three aspects to create environments thatplace quality teachers in each classroom andassure that all students have the opportunity to−−and do−−reach high achievement standards.Teaching and learning are the focus; leadership isthe process to enhance both" (p 270).

Conclusion

According to Effective Schools Research, princi-pals and teachers are chief determiners of schoolsuccess. More specifically, the principal is thesingle most important individual to the successof any given school (Edmonds, 1979; Lezotte,1988; Miller, 1995). Davis, Johnson-Reid,Saunders, Williams, and Williams (2005) statedthat the "principal's abilities are central to thetask of building schools that promote powerfulteaching and learning for all students" (p. 8).Administrators are the keepers of the conven-tional practice and wisdom of the time, wisdombeing composed of the professional knowledge,norms, and values that transcend the work siteand times during which an individual works(Smylie & Hart, 1999). This accumulatedknowledge and skill base connects the organiza-tion to previously developed understandings andresearch (Coleman, 1990; Strober, 1990). Thisvast body of post-1970 research on EffectiveSchools and effective principals offers newinsights that allow for the refinement of intern-ship experiences. The focus of the refinement isto pull out those items found among the multi-tude of principal responsibilities that are directlyrelated to student achievement.

According to the Stanford EducationalLeadership Institute,

70



the role of principalship has swelled toinclude a staggering array of professionaltasks and competencies. Principals areexpected to be educational visionaries,instructional and curriculum leaders, assess-ment experts, disciplinarians, communitybuilders, public relations and communi-cations experts, budget analysts, facilitymanagers, special programs administrators,as well as guardians of various legal, contra-ctual, and policy mandates and initiatives. Inaddition, principals are expected to serve theoften conflicting needs and interests of manystakeholders, including students, parents,teachers, district office officials, unions, andstate and federal agencies. (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005, p.15)

However, despite all of the expectations above,the most pervasive challenges and issues facingeducational administrators are related to theexpanding expectations of the role as instructionalleaders (DiPaulo & Tschannen-Moran, 2003).According to DeLeon (2006), the "role ofinstructional leader is only one of a dizzyingarray of roles the school principal is required toplay in today's educational environment" (p. 8). While increased responsibilities have certainlycomplicated the nature of leadership for the prin-cipal, they have also placed a challengingresponsibility on those involved in the prepara-tion of future administrators. As more is learnedabout the internship experience in leadershippreparation, one can begin to move past simpleacculturation to building the capacity in futureleaders for instructional improvement and usepractical experiences as avenues for school trans-formation through the development of leaderscapable of leading effective schools. Without adoubt, leadership is easier said than done. And,with practice through the internship, aspiringleaders are allowed the opportunity to takesmall steps toward assuming the roles and

responsibilities that come with an increasinglycomplex and demanding profession.

References

Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (1998). Handbook of instructional leadership: How really good principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2003). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Brookover, W., & Lezotte, L. (1979). Changes in school characteristics in coincidence with changes in student achievement. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Browne-Ferrigano, T. (2003). Becoming a principal: Role conception, initial socialization, role-identity transformation, purposeful engagement. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 39(4), 468-503.

Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role socialization, professional development,and capacity building. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 468-494.

Cantano, N., & Stronge, J. (2006, September). What are principals expected to do? Congruence between principal evaluation andperformance standards. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 221-237.

Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Crow, G., & Matthews, L. J. (1998). Finding one's way: How mentoring can lead to dynamic leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Cunningham, W. (2007). A handbook for educational leadership interns: A right of passage. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Cunningham, W., & Nunnery, J. (2007). Developing an effective instructional



71

climate for all students. Paper presented at the annual UCEA conference, Washington, DC.

Daresh, J. C. (1992, December). Mentoring programs to support beginning school leaders. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Colorado Association of School Boards, Colorado Springs, CO.

Daresh, J. C. (1995). Research base on mentoring for educational leaders: What do we know? Journal of Educational Administration, 33(5), 7-16.

Daresh, J. (2003). Teachers mentoring teachers.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Daresh, G. (2004). Mentoring school leaders: Professional promise or predictable problems? Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 495-517.

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

Davis, L., Johnson-Reid, M., Saunders, J., Williams, J., & Williams, T. (2005). Academic self-efficacy among African American youths: Implications for school social work practice. Children & Schools, 27,5-14.

DeLeon, A. (2006, Fall). The school leader crisis: Have school principals been left behind? Carnegie Reporter, 4(1), 1-9.

DiPaulo, M. E., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (March, 2003). The principal at a crossroads: A study of the conditions and concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87(643), 43-56.

Duttweiler, P. (1988). New insights from research on effective schools. Insights. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Duttweiler, P. (1990). A broader definition of effective schools: Implications from research and practice. In T. Sergiovanni & J. Moore (Eds.), Target 2000: A compact forexcellence in Texas schools. Austin, TX:

Texas Association for Curriculum and Development.

Edmonds R. (1979, January). A discussion of the literature and issues related to effective schooling. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED170394)

Ehrich, L. C. (1995). Professional mentorship for women educators in government schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 33(2), 69-83.

Ehrich, L., Hansford, B., & Tennent, L. (2004). Formal mentoring programs in education andother professions: A review of the literature. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4),518-450.

Fleming, K. A. (1991). Mentoring: Is it the key to opening doors for women in educational administration? Education Canada, 31(3), 27-33.

Gardiner, M. E., Enomoto, E., & Grogan, M. (2000). Coloring outside the lines. Mentoringwomen into school leadership. New York, NY: SUNY.

Hansford, B., Tennent, L., & Ehrich, L. (2003). Educational mentoring: Is it worth the effort?Educational Research and Perspective, 39,42-75.

Hubbard, S. S., & Robinson, J. P. (1998). Mentoring: A catalyst for advancement in administration. Journal of Career Development, 24(4), 289-299.

Kram, K. (1985). Improving the mentoring process. Training and Development Journal, 39(4), 40-43.

Krug, S. (1992a). Instructional leadership: Aconstructivist perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 430-443.

Krug, S. (1992b). Instructional leadership, school instructional climate, and student learning outcomes (Project Report). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, National Center for School Leadership. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED359668)

72



Luebkemann, H., & Clemens, J. (1992). Mentors for women entering administration: A program that works. NASSP Bulletin, 78(559), 42-45.

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., & Harris, A. (2006, March 30). Successfulschool leadership: What it is and how it influences student learning. London, UK: University of Nottingham, National College for School Leadership, Department of Education and Skills.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute of Studies in Education.

Lezotte, L. (1994). The nexus of instructional leadership and effective schools. The School Administrator, 51(6), 20-23.

Lezotte, L. (1988). Base school improvement onwhat we know about effective schools. American School Board Journal, 176(8), 18-20.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. New York, NY: The Education School Project.

Matters, P. N. (1994, January). Mentoring partnerships: Keys to leadership success for principals and managers. A paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, World Congress Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

Mertz, N. T. (2004). What's a mentor, anyway? Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4),541-560.

Miller, T. (1995). Educational freedom for a democratic society: A critique of national standards, goals, and curriculum. Brandon, VT: Resource Center for Redesigning Education.

Owings, W., & Kaplan, L. (2003). Best practices, best thinking, and emerging issues in school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Playko, M. (1995). Mentoring for educational leaders: A practitioner's perspective. Journal of Educational Administration, 33(5), 84-92.

Pounder, D., & Crow, G. (2005). Sustaining the pipeline of school administrators. Educational Leadership, 62(8), 56-60.

Sherman, W. H. (2005). Preserving the status quo or renegotiating leadership: Women's experiences with a district-based aspiring leaders program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(5), 707-740.

Sherman, W. H., & Cunningham, W. (2006). Improving administrative preparation and practice through well-designed internships. Paper presented at the annual UCEAconference, San Antonio, TX.

Smylie, M., & Hart, A. (1999). School leadership for teacher learning and change: Ahuman and social capital development perspective. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Handbook for research on educational administration (pp. 421-443). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Southworth, G. (1995). Reflection on mentoringfor new school leaders. Journal ofEducational Administration. 33(5), 17-28.

Spreier, S., Fontaine, M., & Mallory, R. (2006, June). Leadership run amuck: The destructivepotential of overachievers. Harvard Business Review, 84(6), 72-81.

Strober, M. (1990). Human capital theory: Implications for H. R. managers. Industrial Relations, 29, 214-239.

Winn, A. (1993). Critical factors in preparationand progression in the principalship: Adescriptive study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Young, M. (2007). Politics and policy: Getting political in your state __ day on the hill and beyond. Unpublished remarks at pre-conference prior to annual UCEAConference, Washington, DC.



73

William G. Cunningham is a Professor andEminent Scholar in the Department ofEducational Leadership and Counseling at OldDominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. Hisareas of specialization are educational leader-ship, educational internships, and educationalcontext and planning. Whitney H. Sherman, is anAssistant Professor in the Department ofEducational Leadership at VirginiaCommonwealth University in Richmond,Virginia. Her areas of specialization are women

in leadership; leadership preparation; and men-toring, social justice, and equity.

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Dr. William G. Cunningham,Professor and Eminent Scholar, Department ofEducational Leadership and Counseling, OldDominion University, Norfolk, Virginia 23529-0157Email: [email protected]

74


William A. Owing & Leslie S. Kaplan

Allan Ornstein should be a familiar name to mostschool administrators since he is a prolific writerwith several seminal textbooks on the market.His newest book, Class Counts, is in the author'sown words, " . . . a 340-page ramble that my oldhandball, basketball, and baseball buddies mightappreciate" (p. xi). Ornstein lists some of his oldbuddies from P.S. 42 who had no pedigree,legacy, or inherited wealth, power, or privilege.Some never achieved the American Dream; afew, however, went on to achieve solid middleclass status. Ornstein points out that increasingly,one's social class may count more than theireducation level as people try to achieve theAmerican Dream−−hence the title.

Ornstein's thesis is that public education is nolonger the engine of social and economicmobility. It is becoming more difficult to climbthe ladder of success in our country. He cites thefact that in the last 15 years, real householdincome rose 2 percent for the bottom 90 percentof Americans, but rose 57 percent for the top 1percent of wage earners. It soared 85 percent forthe top 0.1 percent, and skyrocketed 112 percentfor the top 0.01 percent! Given a similar eco-nomic outlook, Ornstein observes, most in hisgeneration would be in much worse socio-economic shape had they grown up and startedtheir high school or college education today.

The author asserts that with increasing incomedisparities and inequality of educational oppor-tunity, education is no longer society's "greatequalizer." While America believes in socialmobility−−that one generation or individual canand should rise above the previous generation'sor family's attainment level−−facts show this isbecoming more difficult. Only three percent ofstudents attending the top 146 colleges anduniversities come from the bottom economicquartile, further exacerbating wealth and classgaps. Likewise, Ornstein cites statistics to showthat income quintiles have "hardened,"decreasing social mobility. Between 1979 and2000 income gaps between the poor, middleclass, and rich have increased. To put this intoperspective, after-tax income for the richest onepercent increased 201 percent. The middlequintile increased 15 percent while the bottomfifth increased only 9 percent.

This income inequality, Ornstein notes, iseroding public schools' role in producing theeducated meritocracy. Instead, America's postin-dustrial economy is in danger of developing anaristocracy of inherited wealth. Schools can nolonger equalize the social and cultural advan-tages that exist between social classes. Withglobalization driving down Wal-Mart prices andU.S. middle-class wages, the majority of

Book Review

Class Counts:Education, Inequality, and the Shrinking Middle Class

Allan OrnsteinLanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007, 355 pages

William A. OwingsOld Dominion University

Leslie S. KaplanEducation Writer


Book Review

75

Americans are falling further behind themobility curve. To bring it home: "What is thevalue of an education and what is happening tothe middle class when a teacher can barely afforda bungalow, and some captain of industry, enter-tainer, or sports figure lives a more luxurious lifethan the land barons of the aristocratic Old Worldthat we had hoped to eliminate in the NewWorld" (p. 188)?

Ornstein begins Class Counts with a westerncivilization overview of social class, wealth, andinequality. His discussion extends from ThomasJefferson and Alexander Hamilton to Teddy andFranklin Roosevelt to George W. Bush. Classdistinctions, Ornstein argues, are not new. Ourfounding fathers debated this topic. They asked:Should the country be run by an aristocracy ofthe bright and wealthy or by the general massesthat did not even understand the debate's abstrac-tions? The founders finally agreed that America'shope rested with an educated populace.

While the U.S. never lost its social class distinc-tions, America embraced the idea of equalityunder the law to pursue property, life, and liberty.The American Revolution gave the common mana new pride and power, new opportunities, andmultiple chances to succeed. This provided anew respect for talent, hard work, and merit.Hence, ordinary Americans came to believe thateveryone was the same as everyone else andeveryone had equal opportunity to achieve theAmerican dream.

Class Counts shows how tax policies since theReagan administration have benefited thewealthiest Americans to a much greater extentthan the rest of the population. A plethora ofstatistics demonstrates how such policies haveexacerbated wealth gaps, excluding many fromthe prosperity many see but can not attain.

The author offers a final chapter on recommen-dations and solutions in Class Counts. Most

involve restructuring Social Security, Medicare,Medicaid, healthcare, college tuition, and taxstructures. For educators, he encourages using amore relevant, globalized curriculum andreminders to become informed voters (and votefor individuals who will accomplish necessarysocietal changes).

What does this mean for educators? Ornsteinargues that most educators believe in "equalopportunity" and see school as a processinvolving the acquisition of skills and the incul-cation of better work habits in order to increasethe individual's productivity. Since income isrelated to productivity, more education bringshigher income. Education also serves as ascreening device to sort individuals into differentjobs. The more talented and highly-educatedindividuals will obtain better jobs. "The resultingstratification, based on merit or performance, isacceptable to most of us in a democratic society"(p. 175).

The democratic system breaks down, however,when inherited wealth becomes entrenched andwhen the gap between the wealthy andunwealthy (with similar amounts of education)increasingly becomes lopsided. As "the relation-ship between education and income diminishes−−and class, rank, and privilege increasingly out-weigh talent, ability, and performance" (p. 175),Ornstein implies that public schools become lessan engine for meritocracy or social mobility.

"Most of us who believe in the American dreamare willing to accept elitism based on intellectualpursuits and merit, as opposed to elitism basedon inherited wealth and privilege. However merit. . . is becoming a diminishing asset" (p. 172).By reducing the importance of merit, we invari-ably reduce mobility. If we reduce mobility basedon merit, do we also reduce public schools' roleas a means for talented but less affluent studentsto rise, economically and socially? Ornstein con-cludes that "It is doubtful if grossly underfunded

76


William A. Owing & Leslie S. Kaplan

schools, managed by bureaucratic and some-times cruel policies and staffed by many unpre-pared teachers, can make a dent" (p. 15).

Ornstein continues, "Not only do schools havelittle measurable effect on students' test scoresand future earnings, what accounts for theassumed relationship between education andoccupation and income are a number of under-lying variables related to education such as familystructure, inherited intelligence, peer group, andsocioeconomic class" (p. 173). Those who startat the lower income brackets have less socialcapital that those who start in the middle orhigher income categories. Those with less socialcapital come to school with few cognitive skills,and the gap worsens as the students pass fromgrade to grade. Parents with more social capitalmove into high-performing school districts, pro-vide private tutoring, and work the systemthrough university alumni associations, profes-sional networks, and social contacts to assisttheir children's careers, ensuring class advan-tages. While Ornstein's view may be politicallyincorrect, and be anathema to Effective Schoolsadvocates, his array of supporting data will giveany thoughtful educator pause.

Class Counts is not a mainstream education the-ory text. It is, as Ornstein admits, somewhat of arant. But the book deserves attention. In a worldwhere leaders in effective schools are excessivelyfocused on the fine scale achievement gapsbetween middle-class White and traditionallyunderserved minority and disabled students,perhaps it is wise to examine the larger frame.Do public schools still offer a meritocracy wheretalented and able students can work hard, learn,and gain the attitudes, knowledge, and skills forsocial and economic advancement? Or has cul-ture changed so much that even middle-classstudents with a good education have little chanceof making the social and economic gains avail-able only a few generations ago?

It has long been known that disenfranchisedstudents have difficulty meeting school academicgoals. Nevertheless, schools employing theEffective Schools Correlates allowed traditionallyunderserved students to successfully answer thequestion, "What's in it for me?" The problemOrnstein raised, however, is much larger. IfOrnstein is correct, there is a movement towardsan entire middle class of students becoming dis-enfranchised from education. If the middle classcannot use public schools to advance their edu-cation and opportunities, what hope is there forless affluent students? These questions deserveserious and thoughtful discussion.

Education can be faulted for many failures.Effective schools, in our opinion, are generallyproactive in meeting student learning needs. Itmight do us well to consider what Ornstein has tosay about the country's increased hardening ofclass boundaries and shrinking middle class.Does the evidence suggest that the Americandream of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi-ness is fading?

If Ornstein is correct, not considering the largerrealities that confront students' futures may leaveus unable to help them. This would be a failurefrom which students cannot recover. If Ornsteinis incorrect, Class Counts still gives educators abroader lens by which to understand the largersocietal and global context in which everyoneworks and to consider the implications for per-sonal and professional lives.

Rooted in the philosophy of George Counts,Michael Harrington, and Christopher Jencks,Class Counts challenges educators in effectiveschools to consider if we are actually meetingchildren's instructional, intellectual, and attitu-dinal needs. Are students still being prepared toachieve the American Dream? What should betaught? How should it be taught? In a nationwhere less than half the population votes, how do


Book Review

77

schools prepare students to meet their civicresponsibility? Do teachers and students need tobe helped to think meta-cognitively about whatschooling means to their future and to thecountry's? If Ornstein is correct, it is again timefor effective educators to be proactive. Class

Counts is a must read for any thinking, well-rounded, effective school leader.

NOTE: More information about the book andother reviews can be found at classcounts.org

JES SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS General Articles and Research Manuscripts: Authors must send three printed copies (unstapled) alongwith a self-addressed, stamped 10” x 13” envelope with sufficient postage for two manuscripts to SusanJenkins, Associate Editor, Journal for Effective Schools, 921 South 8th Avenue, Stop 8019, Pocatello, Idaho83209-8019. Electronic submissions will not be accepted. Additional detailed information concerning thesubmission of manuscripts can be found on the Internet at http://icee.isu.edu. Manuscripts not followingspecifications listed on the Website will be returned to the author(s). The editors conduct a double-blind,peer-review process; therefore, authors must exclude their names, institutions, and clues to authors’ identitiesfrom within the text of the manuscript.

Length, Typing, Style: Manuscripts must be typed or word-processed. The title should appear at the topof the first page. A manuscript, including all references, tables, and figures, should be 20-30 pages in length.Authors should keep tables and figures to a minimum and include them at the end of the text. All text,including titles, headings, references, quotations, figure captions, and tables, must be typed double-spacedwith one-inch margins all around. All pages must be numbered. Any abbreviations and acronyms not wellknown to the average reader should be explained. For writing, editorial style, and references, authors mustfollow the guidelines in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (Fifth Edition).

Abstract and Cover Page: All general and researched manuscripts must include an abstract. Abstractsdescribing the essence of the manuscript must be 100-150 words and be typed double-spaced on a separatepage. On the cover page, authors must include their name(s), title, institution, mailing address, daytime phonenumber(s), fax number, e-mail address, and a brief (10 words or fewer) description(s) of area(s) ofspecialization.

SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATIONOne year for institutions $110.00; two years $220.00; three years $330.00; single issue $75.00. One year forindividuals $55.00; two years $105.00; three years $150.00; single issue $40.00. Canadian subscriptions add$10.00 per year. International subscriptions add $15.00 per year. Orders and inquiries should be addressedto: Journal for Effective Schools, Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness, College of Education, IdahoState University, 921 South 8th Avenue, Stop 8019, Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8019. Orders may be paid by per-sonal check, purchase order, VISA or Mastercard.

The Journal for Effective Schools is published online twice a year: once in the fall and once in the spring.

ISSN 1542-104X

COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSIONSCopyright © 2008 Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness.

No part of this Journal may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electric or mechanical,including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without writtenpermission from the copyright owner. Authors are granted permission to reproduce their articles forpersonal use.

Permission to copy must be obtained from the copyright owner. Please apply for permission to:Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness, College of Education, Idaho State University, 921 South8th Avenue, Stop 8019, Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8019.




Published by theIntermountain Center for Education Effectiveness

College of EducationIdaho State University

921 South 8th Avenue, Stop 8019Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8019

p 208.282.3202 f 208.282.2244

journal for effective schools spring 2008

Documents

effective schools volume

effective schools correlates

effective schools products

effective schools process

effective schoolslawrence

effective schoolsjournal

effective schoolsmay

effective resources