Principals’ Perception of Influence on Factors Affecting Student Achievement in Low- and High-Achieving Urban High Schools

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to compare and contrast influences principals have on staffing, curriculum issues, and discipline policies in high- and low-performing urban high schools. The data for the present study were drawn from the first year follow up of the Educational Longitudinal Survey of 2002-2004 (ELS: 02), administered by the National Center for Educational Statistics. Of the 14,000 school administrators surveyed, only high-and low-performing urban high schools were included for this study. The results of this study revealed four areas where principals differed in their perceptions of their individual influences on academic achievement at their respective schools. Principals from high achieving urban school tend to have more influence on hiring and firing teaching staff and curriculum issues, such as course offerings and curricular guidelines. Principals from low achieving schools have more influence on school funding.

Keywords

effective schools research high schools principals’ perceptions school improvement urban education

Whether or not we will effectively teach the children of the poor is more a matter of politics than of social science. . . . It seems to me, therefore, that what is left of this discussion are three declarative statements: (a) We can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. (b) We already know more than we need to do that; and (c) Whether or not we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so far.

Ronald Edmonds (1979, p. 22)

Introduction

Effective and successful public schools are highly regarded places of learning. These “good schools” (Glickman, 2010) offer researchers the opportunity to uncover and identify the factors correlated with student achievement within various socioeconomic, gender, and grade levels. However, defining success and effectiveness narrowly limits our grasp of the more important phenomena of collective organizational action, agreed-on purpose, and belief in attainment (Spillane, Hallett, & Diamond, 2003). Measuring and defining school success becomes a complicated and difficult task for researchers. The experimental variables and variability can fluctuate depending on instrumentality, geographic region, or the instructional leader. Glickman (1987) reasons that for a school to be or become successful, it must clearly define success for itself by announcing a clear mission complemented by measurable actions by all members of the school community.

Collaborative leadership practices empower teachers to create rich environments for learning “based on the belief that teaching consists of known technical skills with known standards and competencies” (Glickman & Tamashiro, 1980, p. 76). In addition, in rethinking leadership models, professional development programs and principal preparation programs are beginning to think of leadership training not only in terms of principals but also others who serve within the school as teachers and administrators. The National Partnership for Teaching in At-Risk Schools (2005) proposes the idea of “distributed leadership—that is, sharing leadership across various staff levels from teachers to school administrators within a school—is beginning to receive more attention” p. 13).

Strong leaders know how to mold the culture into a place where parents want their children to become “independent, self-sufficient, and self-reliant” (Asa H. Atkins, Professor of Biology, Xavier University of Louisiana, personal communication, May, 1967). Edmonds (1979) is often quoted in reasoning that effective schools for the urban poor “have strong administrative leadership without which the disparate elements of good schooling could neither be brought together or kept together” (p. 7). It was Edmonds who wrote concisely and directly regarding effective instructional practice for the poor. “[There] may be schools out there that have strong instructional leaders, but are not yet effective; however, we have never yet found an effective school that did not have a strong instructional leader as the principal” (p. 10). Unsurprisingly, the principal stands as the centralizing force for teachers, students, and curriculum implementation within the school (Blasé, 1987; Joyce, 1991; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2007; Tyler, 1987).

Spillane et al. (2003) confirm through their study that principals carry with them several different forms of capital (i.e., social, cultural, and political) that has strong influence in specific socially constructed situations. The advantages of appropriate use of social capital include, but are not limited to, better group communications, more efficient collective action, better access to resources, and enhanced use of the organization’s intellectual capital (i.e., improved instruction in classrooms) (Leana & Pil, 2006). Furthermore, when schools begin to rethink their current instructional design to meet the demands of the 21st century, or to retool their teachers’ knowledge base in terms of using appropriate technology instructional practices, the principal remains the standard bearer for leading the change efforts (Purkey & Smith, 1983; Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2005), as well as sustaining that change.

Large, urban school districts face special challenges in the improvement of academic performance as a result of crime and poverty (Reyes, 2006; Waxman & Padron, 1995). Solutions for these problems tend to vary from commonplace to complex. The National Partnership for Teaching in At-Risk Schools (2005) contend that the dimensions of poverty and crime, coupled with the economic and social consequences for poor and minority children, continues to rank high as an ongoing educational issue. Nowhere are the social implications of increasing numbers of disadvantaged families living in urban areas more evident than in the large, urban school districts where the toxic conditions of academic underachievement, student and teacher alienation, and high drop-out rates exist (Kozol, 1991; Lippman, Burns, & McArthur, 1996) Moreover, the physical structures and facilities in inner-city schools remain in disrepair and are in constant need of rehabilitation. In a 1998 report by the National Center for Education Statistics, the average age of a public school in America is 42 years. These buildings are not only obsolete but contain environmental hazards with most of the oldest schools (over 60 years) “serving mostly poor and minority students” (Lewis et al., 1989, p. 1). School improvement is tied directly to community development (Davies, 2002).

School success and community success are linked. Public schools are seldom able to be much better than neighborhoods and surrounding communities. Neighborhoods and communities are seldom able to stay healthy and attractive without good schools. (p. 392)

The students most likely to drop out and not graduate from high school attend these impoverished and failing schools (Dalaker & Naifeh, 1998). Disadvantaged schools with large, high-need populations demand leaders who understand the urgency of “now,” construct rational resistance to unproductive and ineffective programs and practices for students, and commit to community building with parents and stakeholders (Bloom & Erlandson, 2003). Consequently, daily administrative decision making may directly or indirectly affect and influence the outcomes for student success. Using a large national sample, the purpose of the present study is to identify the degree of influences principals feel they have in their schools. This study will also compare their perception of influence across principals’ high- and low-achieving academic environments.

Research Questions

This study is premised on previous findings that school leadership—specifically leadership practices engaged by the principal—is fundamental in efforts to change and improve urban schools. The findings of this study produce evidence that, in urban schools, principals hold particular perceptions about the daily functions over which they have the greatest control. Cuban (1988) and Lindblom (1977) maintain that school leaders create the environments that support the conditions for change. We argue that the environmental forces within the school itself give rise to these internal perceptions.

The research questions to be answered in this study are as follows:

Research Question 1: Over which factors do principals at high-achieving schools perceive they have the greatest influence?

Research Question 2: Over which factors do principals at high-achieving schools perceive they have the least influence?

Research Question 3: Over which factors do principals at low-achieving schools perceive they have the greatest influence?

Research Question 4: Over which factors do principals at low-achieving schools perceive they have the least influence?

Literature Review

The literature review will survey the previous finding in four key areas: (1) effective school research, (2) school improvement research for the 21st century, (3) instructional/educational leadership research, and (4) student achievement and socioeconomic status.

Effective School Research

According to the early research writings of Edmonds (1979) and Blasé (1987), and later Lezotte and Jacoby (1990), the “effective school process is a school reform framework based on evolving research from both empirical and case studies of schools across the country that have been effective in teaching the intended curriculum to all of their students” (p. 10). Two additional standards are necessary in measuring the effectiveness of schools: quality and equity. Quality assures that the overall level of achievement is high, whereas equity assures that quality is found in all subgroups regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, or ability. These early studies identified five correlates, or indicators, of behaviors present in effective schools. The five-factor formula contains the beginnings for further research on what an effective school must practice:

Strong leadership by the principal, especially in instructional matters

High expectations of student achievement by teachers

An emphasis on basic skills

An orderly environment

Frequent, systematic evaluations of students (Edmonds, 1979).

More recent studies have added factors to the list (Table 1). Within the lists of effective school indicators a significant number of common characteristics occur. Hoy and Miskel (2008) clarify the overlap into the general areas of high-quality curriculum; experienced, motivated, knowledgeable, and collegial teacher; clear goals and high achievement expectations; a healthy school climate that encourages teaching and learning; a staff development program rewards for success; involved parents; and strong instructional leadership by the principal and teachers (pp. 302-303).

Table 1.

Two Sets of Factors in the Effective Schools Formula (Hoy & Miskel, 2008)

Purkey and Smith (1983)	Scheerens and Bosker (1997)
Instructional leadership	Educational leadership
Planned and purposeful curriculum	Curriculum quality/opportunity to learn
Clear goals and high expectations	Achievement Orientation
Time on task	Effective learning time
Recognition of academic success	Feedback and reinforcement
Orderly climate	Classroom climate
Sense of community	School climate
Parental support and involvement	Parental involvement
School site management	Independent learning
Staff development	Evaluative potential
Staff stability	Consensus and cohesion
Collegial and collaborative planning	Structured instruction
Direct support	Adaptive instruction

Source: From “School Effectiveness, Accountability and Improvement,” by W. K. Hoy and C. G. Miskel, Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practice (8th ed., Chapter 8, p. 303). Copyright 2008 by McGraw-Hill. Reprinted with permission.

From studies about effective school research, Murphy (1992) collated his findings into the article “Effective Schools: Legacy and Future directions.” Here, he listed what he believed to be the true legacy of effective schools research:

All students can learn

Schools should focus on student outcomes and rigorously assess progress toward reaching those outcomes.

Schools should assume a fair share of the responsibility for student learning.

Schools should be structurally, symbolically, and culturally linked, providing for consistency and coordination throughout the school community (pp. 165-168).

School Improvement Research for the 21st Century

Taylor (2002) contends that school reform must now transition away from using effective school correlates as a way of defining the success of a school. School effectiveness research has a positive correlational aspect, but these characteristics are not causal. School reform efforts have tended to lean heavily on standardized tests, literacy examinations, and other quantifiable data to determine whether a school is effective. Cuban (1998) has cautioned against using limited snapshots to define effectiveness:

Findings indicate that effectiveness correlates should be viewed as prerequisites rather than guarantees of success; that policy and practices at the school level should consider contextual variables and set priorities accordingly; that tests should encourage the development of higher order skills; and that research should focus on both effective teaching skills and school practices. (p. 453)

Much of the educational literature cites the impetus for the current standards movements as the release of the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk. This landmark report asserted that the poor educational performance of students resulted from the inadequacies of the educational system itself. Consequently, the public and, in turn, legislators were quick to jump on the education reform bandwagon (National Policy Board for Educational Administration [NPBEA], 2002). These movements have resulted in principals who expect accountability of students, teachers, and staff.

Another landmark event took place in September 1989, at the National Education Summit involving the nation’s governors and President George H. W. Bush. This meeting resulted in achievement goals that emphasized academic competency at all grade levels as well as increasing the national high school graduation rate to 90% (Marzano, Kendall, National Association of State Boards of Education, & Mid-Continent Regional Educational Lab, 1997). These recommendations brought national attention to the subject of standards and prompted organizations to establish standards within their respective fields. Subsequently, many legislators wanted every school to create and implement an improvement plan. In addition, they wanted every child to demonstrate academic competence. This movement resulted in mandating standardized testing as the method for measuring student performance and therefore effective teaching.

As such, school improvement, based on these mandates, forced principals to focus on standards using the overarching goals of high academic expectations for all students, accountability for learning outcomes, including all students in improvement initiatives, and added flexibility to change instruction (Goertz, 2001; Jeffrey, 2007). In 2001, this movement resulted in legislators passing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which set minimum levels of student achievement measured by standardized state and local assessments. However, NCLB called for “highly qualified educators” to deliver instruction. The act imposed punitive actions by allowing their students to take the Title I funds allocations to other another school if the students’ present schools failed to meet imposed standards and were designated as failing (Gordon, 2002). Requiring this level of accountability resulted in outcries from teachers and principals alike partly because of a lack of additional resources to meet what many believed was an “unfunded mandate,” which also included programs designed to alleviate achievement gaps for students who had not achieved “proficiency” on the mandated tests.

Schmoker (2002), in his assessment of educational reform, stated that standards had not added “one iota of clarity to the confusion faced by the majority of teachers” who were, for the most part, very successful in teaching their students (p. 2). With public movements for student achievement for every child, principals have correspondently increased their expectations and accountability demands for all teachers and staff members in their schools (Smith & O’Day, 1991). These demands have resulted in frustration and doubt for teachers who are constantly expected to participate in ongoing professional development many believe excludes the essential needs of their students. Hanushek (2005) contends that while some professional developmental programs are successful, most produce disappointing results. Consequently, few states and the nation in general have not experienced the expected performance gains or reductions in achievement gaps from the billions of tax dollars invested in the reform movement (Elmore, 2002; Goertz, 2005).

The contemporary principal’s role as an instructional leader engaged in standards-based school improvement has evolved into one in which every stakeholder is empowered to participate in the learning process. Principals must know when to be a manger and when to be a leader. This type of leadership is difficult for some individuals because its very nature risks losing control of the school (Barth, 2001). Moreover, principals must learn ways of overcoming media scrutiny and political policies that discuss change with little regard to practical, working solutions to achieve academic opportunities for underserved populations. Because it appears that education reform is with us to stay for the near future, accountability is now the standard for the principal, teacher, and student. Nodding (2003) maintains that effective school leadership must include measures that allow for accountability and endorse progress of learning even as meeting the individual needs of students and promoting learning that meets the needs of the child as a whole. The principal’s ability to meet these two responsibilities is associated with influences they have over the operation of their school. This includes their impact on curriculum, staffing, and school environment issues (Choy, Henke, Alt, Medrich, & Bobbitt, 1993). Each of these factors is interwoven into the fabric of the school, which helps define the overall academic success. Therefore, identifying specific influences that campus leaders have at their respective schools becomes the first step in determining which areas of principal influences are important and how they lead to academic success.

Instructional/Educational Leadership

When reviewing the earliest conceptualizations of what defines a leader, two variables emerged as distinct categories within leadership behavior: concern for the task (i.e., production, outcomes, task completion or goal achievement) and concern for people (i.e., interpersonal relationships and group maintenance). The University of Iowa (Lewin, Lippett, & White, 1939), Ohio State University (Stogdill & Coons, 1957), and the University of Michigan (Likert, 1967) conducted three of the most widely known and respected leadership studies. The Ohio State Studies appeared to produce the most consistent and replicable information tested within a variety of educational settings (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008). The Ohio State Studies asserts through repeated research that “democratic leadership produces the best outcome; authoritarian leadership create[s] low-level aggression, apathy and lower subordinate satisfaction; laissez-faire leadership produce[s] the most aggression, increasing the most productivity initially, but productivity reduce[s] drastically over time” (p. 129).

Hallinger (2005) bemoans the continuing research focusing on the principal as the main variable in improved student achievement. Over the past few decades, the importance of the principalship has become increasingly more evident as legislators have placed the accountability for student performance squarely on the shoulders of those who are serving as school principals. Moreover, these expectations have continuously increased the responsibilities of the position yet offering little in the way of support (Southern Regional Education Board, 2006). Consequently, these growing expectations have greatly increased the scrutiny of the principal’s role, especially in underachieving minority schools (Bloom & Erlandson, 2003; Clark, Brooks, Lee, Daley, & Crawford, 2006; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). Similarly, Coplan (2001) explains that “two decades into the current age of school reform, one can argue that we have reached the point where aggregate expectations for the principalship are so exorbitant that they exceed the limits of what might reasonably be expected from one person” (pp. 528-533). Principals can no longer be strictly managers; they are expected to be instructional and community leaders. Principals, when hired, are expected to possess the necessary skill sets to take their school to the high levels of academic achievement expected and demanded by all stakeholders. These expectations necessitate an environment where all students are successful learners and all faculty and staff members compose a leadership team, not only in the school but in the community as well (Clark et al., 2006).

Instructional leadership, the ability to lead teachers in their instructional capacity, emanates from effective principals’ behaviors and attitudes. Blasé (1987) identified 14 intertwined factors evident in all effective principals, including clear expectations, supportive nature, and willingness to delegate. Licata, Teddlie, and Greenfield (1990) suggested that two predictors preceded as an indicator of a principal’s robustness in leadership: “the principals’ effectiveness in exchanging ideas about their vision, and teachers’ freedom to select techniques of work” (p. 97).

Not all research scholars agree that the principal is the pivotal variable in school achievement. We know that secondary schools are the weakest in the educational chain (Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010) and need specific support systems. However, Balfanz and Mac Iver (2000) warn that it is risky to place too much faith in one lone leader for whole school improvement:

In low-performing, high poverty middle schools, principals have a short tenure. This is especially true for effective principals who often use their success . . . as an immediate stepping stone to a better-paying, less stressful job. . . . Deep and lasting reform in high poverty schools will take hold only if significant numbers of faculty are committed to them. (p. 151)

Principals with effective instructional leadership skills are essential elements in reaching expected school performance and improvements. Ongoing state and national education reform efforts continue to place ever-increasing demands on school principals by measuring the success of their schools through students’ performance on state and national standardized tests. This increased emphasis on students’ performance creates increased challenges for principals across the nation, especially schools with large populations of underprivileged and minority students (Kozol, 2005). Compared to principals of more affluent and nonminority schools, principals of schools with large populations of underprivileged and minority students have historically faced a wider array of concerns regarding improved student performance (Barton, 2002; Bell, 2003; Orfield, Frankenberg, & Lee, 2002). Some of these challenges include poverty, student, and family transience, discrimination based on race and economic status, insufficient budgeting for high-need students, and teachers trained in theory but lacking knowledge and experience in the appropriate pedagogy necessary to teach children from underserved populations. Consequently, these principals are faced with overwhelming and sometimes impossible expectations that have been mandated by the state and federal legislation. However, despite the concerns from legislators and the public, the facilitation of face-to-face communications is a critical factor for successful school improvement (Balfanz & Mac Iver, 2000; Kozol, 1991).

Despite these challenges, positive strides have been made with underserved students. For example, a study conducted by Standards and Poor demonstrated that despite the gaps between the underserved populations and their suburban and rural counterparts, these children have significantly improved their reading and math scores on mandated state tests. In fact, many of these schools scores that surpass their respective state average. Despite these successes, the reality is that for the most part, children from these underserved populations are failing to meet required goals for improvement. To counter this condition, districts are realizing the need for principals with the moral, ethical, and instructional leadership skills necessary to effectively lead school improvement (Barton, 2002; Bell, 2003; Kozol, 1991; Meier, 2005; Standard & Poor School Evaluation Services, 2005).

Student Achievement and Socioeconomic Status

Although a few individual teachers consistently do well in moving students forward academically within low socioeconomic environments, the greater success for all students depends on principal leadership that (a) holds clear expectations and strategies for implementation of curricular goals (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001); (b) actively participates in the selection of teachers who believe in building capacity through collaboration and the primacy of the school’s mission (Cole-Henderson, 2000); (c) use data to monitor school progress, identify problems, and propose solutions (LaPointe & Davis, 2006); and (d) understands the forces of change that can stall efforts going forward (Cuban, 1988; Leana & Pil, 2006).

Students attending poor urban schools routinely fall to the bottom of the achievement scales on national achievement tests (Cole-Henderson, 2000; Olson & Jerald, 1998), as the numbers of enrolled students in these schools continue to grow each year. Principals’ attempts at retaining good teachers in high-poverty, low-achieving schools have become an exercise fraught with turnover (Baker & Cooper, 2005; Rosenholtz, 1985). If poverty and academic performance are highly correlated and predictable, then what can principals do to offset the consequences of poverty? Bloom & Erlandson (2003) endorse the explicit use of various kinds of creative leadership practices both for the administrators and for teachers. Stoll and Temperley (2009) assert that creative leadership—based on intrinsic personal core values and beliefs—may be one way to move forward in such rapidly changing technological times.

Several researchers (Allington & Johnson, 2002; Wharton-McDonald, Pressley, & Hampton, 1998) have found that there are behaviors that both teachers and principals can use to boost student achievement, regardless of the district. These factors included high student engagement, modeling of teaching strategies, small group instruction, asking higher-level-omprehension questions, instruction driven by assessment of student strengths, student collaboration activities, and independent reading. Louis et al. (2010) state, “Results indicate that student poverty and district size amount to a double disadvantage. Larger schools with high-poverty student populations are most likely to experience limited leadership—even when we control for the effects of school level and urbanicity” (p. 103).

Previous studies have also attempted to identify the causal factors in school failure, including individual deficits or incompetence, families, inefficiency in schools, and cultural difference. (Deschenes, Cuban, & Tyack, 2001; Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). Engaging students of diverse backgrounds in rigorous academic study programs using each student’s cultural characteristics can improve the outcomes for students. (Moll & Gonzalez, 1997) research suggested that knowing and building on students’ cultural backgrounds can heighten interest levels. Delpit (1995) and Ladson-Billings (1994) observed that teachers of African American students gain more success by building a deep understanding of the communities from which they come and acknowledging their worth to the school. High expectations, deliberate and dedicated phonics instruction through reading, speaking, and writing activities expand the student’s understanding of American English. Delpit advances the purposing of schoolwork to advance the student’s vocabulary repertoire within the English language. Effective language, writing, and speaking skills connote power, influence, and social capital, regardless of social position. Principals must be keenly aware of the school’s individual classroom conditions and be available and knowledgeable of funding strategies to provide resources necessary for teachers to encourage and improve student outcomes.

Method

Participants

The data for the present study were drawn from the first-year follow-up of the Educational Longitudinal Survey of 2002-2004 (ELS: 02). The ELS:04 is a national survey administered by the National Center for Educational Statistics (2002) to provide an overall picture of the present educational experience of high school students in the United States. The survey has four subcomponents completed by students, teachers, parents, and school administrators. For the present study, only the school administrator’s survey data were used.

Procedure

The design used to collect the data was a two-stage, stratified national probability sample. Sample weights were provided in the survey to emulate population data. In this case, about 14,000 school administrators were surveyed representing schools across the country. For the present study, only high- and low-achieving urban school were included in this study.

In determining the ranking of a campus, the item in the survey asking administrators, “In the most recent test administration, what percentage of students taking the competency test failed on the first attempt,” was used as the marker for identifying school status (high/low achieving). Schools were ranked according to percent failed. Schools having a 25% or less failure rate were considered high-achieving urban schools. Similarly, schools that had a 75% failure rate were considered low-achieving urban school. There were 1,422 schools classified as high-performing and 987 classified as low-performing schools used in the analysis. Principal influences at their school were compared across the two school settings.

Instrument

The first follow-up survey examined principals’ perceptions of their influences at their schools. Principal’s perceptions of their influences on teaching personal, curriculum issues, discipline policies, and school funding were also examined. Principals influence on hiring/firing teachers was the item used to measure teaching personnel. The items used to measure curriculum issues were (a) principals influence on course offerings, (b) principals influence on instructional materials, (c) principals influence on curricular guidelines, and (d) principals influence on grading. The item used to measure principal’s influence on discipline policy was their perception of their influence on discipline policies. The item used to measure principal’s influence on school funding was their perception of their influence on school funding discipline at their school. The responses to each item were no influence, some influence, and major influence.

Analysis

To examine the relationship between principal influences and high- and low-achieving schools, a series of logistic models were constructed and tested. It should be noted that in this logistic model, when a small percent of administrators indicated that they had no influence on an item, this response was combined with some influence. Moreover, in the logistic model the multilevel response items were dichotomized into no influence or some influence and major influence. The models used the category high- and low-achieving school as the dependent variable, with low-achieving schools being the reference group. The first model, for example, compared “Staffing Issues” across high- and low-achieving schools. Similarly, the second model compared items used to measure “Curriculum Issues” across high- and low-achieving schools. The remaining models used the same statistical techniques.

Results

Table 2 reports the overall frequent outcomes for the four categories of principal influences at their school. The first category is related to the influence principals have on selecting their teaching staff. About 68% of the principals indicated that they had a major influence on hiring/dismissing teachers’ at their school. The remaining 32% of the principals surveyed indicated that they had some influence.

Table 2.

Descriptive Results of Principals’ Perception of Influence on Four Factors and Subindicators Affecting Student Achievement in Urban Schools

Variables	No influence (%)	Some influence (%)	High influence (%)
1. Staffing Issues: On hiring/dismissing teachers	0.5	31.8	68.2
2. Curriculum issues:
On course offerings	0	31.5	68.5
On instructional materials	2.4	52.8	44.8
On curricular guidelines	0	52.3	47.7
On grading and evaluation	3.3	38.2	58.5
3. Discipline issues: on discipline policies	0.0	17.5	82.5
4. Funding: on school funds	3.4	53.9	42.7

The second group of items relate to principal’s influence on curriculum issues at their school. The first item indicates that approximately 68% of the principals indicated that they had a major influence on course offerings at their school. Similarly, 32% of the principals surveyed indicated that they had some influence on course offerings. The second item indicates that about 44% of the principals indicated that they had a major influence on instructional materials at their school. When asked about curricular guidelines, approximately 48% of the principals indicated that they had a major influence on curricular guidelines at their school. The final item measuring curriculum issues was principal’s influence on grading and evaluation, for which close to 60% of the principals indicated that they had a major influence on grading and evaluation at their school.

The third category of principal influences at their school was discipline policies. The results indicate that approximately 82% of the principals indicated that they had a major influence on discipline policies at their school. The remaining 17% indicated that they have some influence on discipline policies at their school.

The final category of principal influences at their school was school funding issues. The results indicate that about 43% of the principals indicated that they had a major influence on funding issues at their school; another 54% indicated that they have some influence on funding issues at their school. The remaining 3% indicated that they have no influence on funding issues at their school.

To examine differences between administrators’ opinions and high- and low-achieving schools on the seven categories on selecting a postsecondary education, logistics models were constructed and analyzed. Table 3 presents the results of the logistics analysis. The table reports two aspects of the logistic model; the logistic regression coefficient or parameter estimate and the odds ratio for an independent variable. The parameter estimate is used to predict the log odds (logit) of the dependent variable (school achieving level). The odds ratio is the natural log base, e, to the exponent, b, where b = the parameter estimate. In our case, the odds ratios indicate how more likely principals from high-achieving school view an item as very important compared to principals from low-achieving schools. The reference measure for these models are low-achieving schools. In the first model reviewed, principals from high- and low-achieving schools were asked to indicate how much influence they had on hiring and dismissing teachers at their school. The model produced a significant beta of 3.26, which was significant at the .001 level. The model also produced a large odd ratio indicating that principals from high-achieving school were 24 times more likely to have a greater influence on hiring and dismissing teachers at their school compared to principals from low-achieving schools.

Table 3.

Results of Logistic Models: Principals’ Perceptions of Influence at High- Versus Low-Achieving Urban Schools

	Beta	Exp(Beta)	Significance
Staffing Issues
On hiring/dismissing teachers	3.26	24.27	.001*
Curriculum issues
On course offerings	2.66	14.34	.000*
On instructional materials	−0.56	0.569	0.202
On curricular guidelines	3.47	32.127	.001*
On grading and evaluation	0.48	1.626	0.224
Discipline issues
On discipline policies	−0.03	0.963	0.917
Funding
On school funds	−2.85	0.102	.001*

p < .001 (statistically significant).

The second model compared principals’ perceived influences on several curriculum issues. The results indicated that high-achieving-school principals believed they had significantly greater influence on curriculum issues related to course offerings and curricular guidelines compared to their counterparts in low-achieving schools. In this case, course offerings and curricular guidelines produced significant (p < .001) beta of 2.66 and 3.47, respectively. The implications of these measures suggest that principals from high-achieving schools were about 14 times more likely to have a greater influence on course offerings at their school compared to principals from low-achieving schools. Similarly, principals from high-achieving schools were 32 times more likely to have greater influence on curricular guidelines compared to their principal counterpart.

Regarding principals’ influence on discipline, there was no significant association between principals from the high- and low-achieving schools. However, in the final model, there was a significant difference in levels of influences by principals on school funds. In this case, principals from low-achieving school tend to have a greater influence on school funding compared to their principal counterpart.

Discussion

The results of this study also suggest that principal influences tend to vary in high- and low-achieving schools. Variable analysis revealed four areas where principals differed in their perception of their individual influence on academic achievement at their respective schools. The effectiveness of principals in the areas of staffing, curriculum/course selection, discipline, and funding are considered significant.

1. Principals at high-achieving schools believe that they have much greater control over hiring and dismissing practices; low-achieving school principals do not carry that same belief about their control in the hiring or dismissal of their staff.

Teacher selection is perhaps the most crucial component in the efforts of making a successful school. Principals in high-achieving schools reported having more influence on faculty selection at their school. This is an important finding because studies have suggested that the success of a principal is directly related to their teaching staff (Baker & Cooper, 2005; Cole-Henderson, 2000). Principals depend on teachers to implement policies and to lead in the successful development of the school mission. It is not surprising that at high-achieving schools, the school district is more amenable to the recommendations of the principal with regard to staff selection. School districts tend to have less concern about the principals’ capacity to select and hire the best applicant for their school faculty, especially if the principal has low teacher turnover rates. Hiring teachers who fill needed teacher-leadership roles can be viewed as typically adding strength to the collective capacity of the principal in the district. Stable and consistent principal leadership also contributes to principals’ sense of efficacy. Principal’s commitment to directions established by the district, and confidence in being able to pursue them successfully, were significantly eroded by frequent teacher turnover. Therefore, it is recommended that school districts’ human resources confer with and allow principals of high-achieving schools to maintain their freedom to hire staff within board policy guidelines. It is important not only to hire instructionally strong teachers but also to retain such teachers at the campus.

2. There is a relationship between high-achieving principals’ positive perception of their influence on curriculum issues and curricular guidelines and a corresponding perception of principals at low-achieving schools that they do not have significant influence on curriculum issues.

Course offerings are directly associated with the academic objectives of a school. Moreover, schools that offer a wider variety of courses, including more college readiness courses, generally have higher overall high school graduation rates along with increased college enrollment of their graduates. This is an important finding because urban schools continue to struggle with high drop-out rates and a dwindling percent of their graduates enrolling in colleges and universities. Furthermore, urban schools are generally less likely to offer advance placement (AP) courses that will prepare students to be successful in college.

This finding raises the following questions: (a) If principals at urban schools do have an influence on course offerings at their respective schools, is the emphasis being placed on traditional high school curriculum instead of college preparation efforts? (b) Do the state education agencies and legislative guidelines determine the selection of courses a school offers?

At the elementary level, most of the courses are identical across school districts; however, academic course selection and electives begin to change at the middle and high school levels. It is here that the principal has much more autonomy is determining which courses will be offered, abandoned, or added to the master schedule. Strong instructional leaders understand that the master schedule is a political document and often determines the futures for students on the campus. Offering AP courses, flexible course scheduling, or high school electives are the purview of the principal. Deleting a theater arts course at a low-performing school and replacing it with another section of Language Arts or Algebra underscores the power of the principal to support course offerings on the basis of data performance of the students. Adding dual credit courses at the high school level, which can be transferred to college credits, softens the impact of the first year of matriculation for students in college. Parents of high-achieving students become increasingly involved in their child’s courses during their high school years, where every course counts for credit. Principals must have a clear understanding of the legislative guidelines, school district curriculum, and course offerings, AP Courses, Pre-International Baccalaureate courses, and the importance of student readiness for college. If principals in low-achieving schools do not have the same self-efficacy regarding college preparedness for their students, then students may not have access to the same opportunities as their counterparts.

Safety and security issues remain important issues with school campuses. Teachers appreciate principals who implement and enforce strong discipline policies. This leads us to the third important finding of the study, the principal’s perceived influence on school discipline.

3. Principals at both high- and low-achieving schools believe they have control over discipline issues at their schools.

Providing resources for training teachers, students, and parents can assist principals in their efforts to reduce the need for administrative intervention for students. No school can become an effective school or move toward school improvement if unruly student behavior interferes with teacher instructional actions. Teachers expect principals to have control over the discipline of unmanageable students in the form of backup from the administration, thus enabling them to teach unrestrained by excessive time wasted on behavior issues.

The most significant method of determining what discipline problems and criminal activity are present in a school is to review police reports and school suspensions and removals. Students attending urban schools tend to have discipline issues that involve school attendance, fighting, and gang-related violence. High-achieving schools are not immune to the social ills. Drug and alcohol use, gang participation, and weapons and are found most often in high-achieving schools. Principals at all levels of schooling must be aware of the criminal activity within the school and how this activity can affect overall school improvement.

The fourth finding includes the area of funding.

4. Principals at low-achieving schools tend to have a greater influence on the disbursement of funds than principals at high-achieving schools have.

Discretionary funds from the school district, categorical funds (i.e., Title I, II, III, Compensatory, etc.) quite often allow the principal to budget the monies that best suit the needs of the campus. Usually in urban school districts, the federal Title funds are the primary means of “leveling the playing field” for poor students. It is not surprising that principals in high-achieving schools do not have many students who live on or below the poverty line. These schools depend on parent assistance, Parent-Teacher Organizations, and business resources to fill in the gaps for students.

Concluding Remarks

Four implications for policy and practice emerged from this research. Mentoring becomes the last and best hope for future principals in high-poverty, low-achieving schools. Principal preparation training in the area of budgeting, master course building, and funding can reduce frustration levels of school principals in high poverty, crime-ridden urban schools. District leaders need to find new ways of preparing future principals to work in schools that are associated with many environmental and social ills. The assistant principals who are preparing to become principals should be mentored and guided by successful principals while on the job, not just theoretically.

As of 2000, mentoring programs for new principals were rarer than mentoring programs for new teachers. Many district leaders view mentoring a potential solution for reducing problems that plague principals in high-poverty schools, especially in the areas of hiring practices and goal-setting. Arthur Levine (2005), the former president of Columbia University Teachers College, wrote a disparaging review of internship practices in the principal preparation programs of most universities. The failure of these programs to adequately mentor and prepare future leaders for the realities of the work of administration forecast coming crises in urban schools. It, therefore, becomes incumbent on school districts to work tirelessly at advancing the best mentorship programs for principals. Continually hiring inadequately prepared principal applicants costs school districts millions of dollars in lost time and effort. The interminable cycle of advertising, recruiting, interviewing, selecting, and induction of new principals often is causal in the constant disruption of the learning process and inconsistency on school campuses. Hiring the best candidates for high poverty schools will benefit all stakeholders over time.

Understanding the importance of having a safe and orderly environment will assist principals at high- and low-performing schools in achieving improved academic achievement. Districts must train future principals in discipline models that work for low-performing schools. Using the local police force in training principals and teachers on how to identify gang-related behaviors, potential criminal activity, and working with the criminal justice system more effectively can reduce the incidences of criminal activity on a campus.

School districts should develop a strong program on training all future principals in effective, efficient use of monies to implement the Campus Improvement Plan. Principal efficacy is bolstered when the campus principal has a clear understanding of how dollars and student achievement are related.

Instructional leadership must become a core skill for future principals, especially in urban and poor school districts. Training future principals in supervision practices that are developmental in nature will enhance the both the teacher and the student in their effectiveness. As instructional leaders, principals serving at low-achieving schools should be supported in learning how to influence curricular guideline selection for their students, especially in preparing students to be college (community college or university) and work force ready. There is some evidence that urban principals who prepare their students for college see increased motivation for seeking enrollment in higher education. It should become the goal of school leaders to reach out to more students, especially those with vague ideas about college. Too often high schools focus solely on the best, high-achieving students, and students who are average are forgotten. These students will graduate, but without careful access to college preparation programs, that is, dual credit courses (advanced placement), they will be unprepared for college admission. Leaders must decide whether they want all their students to start enjoying college-readiness benefits, which will give students more options for life after graduation. Leaders know that academically average students will need lots of extra support to succeed with tough college-level coursework. Strong leadership will be ready to “break old norms” in paving a new pathway for student aspirations.

It is not merely enough to hire a person to lead a school and hope for the best; it is incumbent upon all stakeholders to support the person in charge of leading a school to success through effective school practices and school improvement processes. Districts have expectations of principals. These expectations can be taught and mentored for success. Principals must have a strong, comprehensive knowledge base of administrative skills that will allow students to achieve their maximum potential. Implementing extensive, school-wide structural change (course selection, modification of the master schedule, cooperative learning practices, and allocation of students to teachers) for the complexities of effective instruction can improve the learning experiences of urban students over time. Principal leadership, effectively managed and supported, can make any school become a place of hope and growth within the community.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Collette M. Bloom serves as associate professor and College of Education research coordinator at Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas. A former public school principal, her research focuses on issues of social justice in public schools, African American women in educational administration, principal preparation programs, and urban school leadership.

Emiel W. Owens is currently an associate professor in the College of Education at Texas Southern University and teaches courses in Educational Research and Statistics. He received his doctorate at University of Houston with an emphasis in research methods and mathematic education. His current research interest is in modeling longitudinal data.

References

Allington

R. L.

Johnson

P. H.

(Eds.). (2002). Reading to learn: Lessons from exemplary 4th grade classrooms. New York, NY: Guilford.

Baker

Cooper

(2005). Do principals with stronger academic backgrounds hire better teachers? Policy implications for improving high-poverty schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 449-479. doi:10.1177/0013161X04269609.

Balfanz

Mac Iver

(2000). Transforming high-poverty urban middle schools into strong learning institutions: Lessons from the first five years of Talent Development middle school. Journal of Education for Students At Risk, 5(1&2), 137-158.

Barth

R. S.

(2001). Learning by heart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barton

P. E.

(2002). Staying on course in education reform. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Bell

(2003). Strategies that close the gap. Educational Leadership, 60(4), 32-34. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ659149)

Blasé

(1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teacher’s perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 24(4), 589-610.

Bloom

C. M.

Erlandson

D. A.

(2003). African American women principals in urban schools: Realities (re) constructions, and resolutions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 339-369.

Choy

S. P.

Henke

R. R.

Alt

M. N.

Medrich

E. A.

Bobbitt

S. A.

(1993). Schools and staffing in the united states: A statistical profile, 1990-91 (NCES Report No. 93-146). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

10.

Clark

M. A.

Brooks

Lee

Daley

L. P

Crawford

(2006). Factors influencing the educational success of minority pre-service educators. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 121-135.

11.

Cole-Henderson

(2000). Organizational characteristics of schools that successfully serve low-income urban African American students. Journal of Education for Students Placed At-Risk, 5(1&2), 77-91.

12.

Coplan

(2001). The myth of the superprincipal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 582-533.

13.

Cuban

(1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.

14.

Cuban

(1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 453. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

15.

Dalaker

Naifeh

(1998). Poverty in the United States: 1997. Current population reports (Series P60-201). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

16.

Davies

(2002). The 10th school revisited: Are school/family/community partnerships on the reform agenda now? Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 388-392.

17.

Delpit

(1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: The New Press.

18.

Deschenes

Cuban

Tyack

(2001). Mismatch: Historical perspectives on schools and students who don’t fit them. Teachers College Record, 103(4), 525.

19.

Edmonds

(1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

20.

Elmore

R. F.

(2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

21.

Glickman

C.D.

Tamashiro

R.T.

(1980). Clarifying teachers’ beliefs about discipline. Educational Leadership, 37, 459-464.

22.

Glickman

(1987). Good and/or effective schools: What do we want? Kappan, 68(8), 622-624.

23.

Glickman

(2010). SuperVision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

24.

Goertz

M. E.

(2001). Refining government roles in an era of standard-based reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 62-55.

25.

Goertz

M. E.

(2005). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges for the States. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 73-89.

26.

Gordon

S. P.

(2002). The good school. Florida Journal of Educational Leadership, 1(2), 13-15.

27.

Hallinger

(2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. College of Management, Mahidol University, Thailand.

28.

Hanushek

E. A.

(2005). Why quality matters in education. Finance & Development, 42(2), 15-19.

29.

Hoy

W. K.

Miskel

C. G.

(Eds.). (2008). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

30.

Hoy

W. K.

Sweetland

S. R.

(2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(3), 296-321.

31.

Jeffrey

(2007). School leadership that works: From research to results. Roeper Review, 29(4), 285.

32.

Joyce

(1991). The doors to school improvement. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 59-62.

33.

Kozol

(1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York, NY: Crown.

34.

Kozol

(2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York, NY: Corwin.

35.

Ladson-Billings

(1994). The dreamkeepers. Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

36.

LaPointe

Davis

(2006). Effective schools require effective principals. Leadership, 36(1), 16.

37.

Leana

C. R.

Pil

F. K.

(2006). Social capital and organizational performance: Evidence from urban public schools. Organizational Science, 17(3), 353-366.

38.

Levine

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

39.

Lewin

Lippett

White

R. K.

(1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates.” Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299.

40.

Lewis

Bednarek

Chion-Kenney

Harrison

Kolodzy

McCormick

. . . Walker

(1989). Wolves at the schoolhouse door: An investigation of the condition of public school buildings. Washington, DC: Education Writers Association.

41.

Lezotte

Jacoby

(1990). The school improvement process based on effective schools research: A guide. Ann Arbor: Michigan Institute for Educational Management.

42.

Licata

Teddlie

Greenfield

(1990). Principal vision, teacher sense of autonomy, and environmental robustness. Journal of Educational Research, 84(2), 93.

43.

Likert

(1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

44.

Lindblom

C. E.

(1977). Politics and markets. New York, NY: Basic Books.

45.

Lippman

Burns

McArthur

(1996). Urban schools: The challenge of location and poverty. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

46.

Louis

K. S.

Leithwood

Wahlstrom

K. L.

Anderson

S. E.

(2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Documents/Learning-from-Leadership-Investigating-Links-Final-Report.pdf

47.

Lunenburg

F. C.

Ornstein

A. C.

(2008). Educational administration: Concepts and practices (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson.

48.

Marzano

Kendall

, National Association of State Boards of Education, & Mid-Continent Regional Educational Lab. (1997). The fall and rise of standards-based education. Issues in brief. Retrieved from ERIC database.

49.

McLaughlin

Talbert

(2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

50.

Meier

(2005). Situating technology professional development in urban schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(4), 395-407.

51.

Moll

L. C.

Gonzalez

(1997). Teachers as social scientists: Learning about culture from household research. In Hall

P. M.

(Ed.), Race, ethnicity and multiculturalism (pp. 89-114). New York: Garland.

52.

Murphy

(1992). Effective schools: Legacy and future directions. In Reynolds

Cuttance

(Eds.), School effectiveness: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 164-170). London: Cassell.

53.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Education longitudinal study of 2002 (ELS: 2002). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/els2002/

54.

National Partnership for Teaching in At-Risk Schools, (2005). Qualified teachers for at-risk schools: A national imperative. Washington, DC: National Partnership for Teaching in At-Risk Schools.

55.

National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2002). Standards for advanced programs in educational leadership for principals, superintendents, curriculum directors, and Supervisors. Austin, TX: Author

56.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002). Retrieved on May 29, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

57.

Noddings

(2003). Is teaching a practice?. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37, 241-251. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.00323

58.

Olson

Jerald

C. D.

(1998). The achievement gap. Education Week Quality Counts, 17(17), 11-13.

59.

Orfield

Frankenberg

Lee

(2002). The resurgence of school segregation. Educational Leadership, 60(4), 16. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

60.

Purkey

S. C.

Smith

M. S.

(1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 427-452.

61.

Reyes

(2006). Discipline, achievement, and race: Is zero tolerance the answer? Lanham: MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

62.

Rosenholtz

(1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of Education, 93, 376.

63.

Scheerens

Bosker

(1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford, UK: Permagon.

64.

Schmoker

(2002). Up and away. Journal of staff development, 23(2), 1-8.

65.

Sergiovanni

T. J.

Starratt

R. J.

(2007). Supervision: A redefinition (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

66.

Smith

M. S.

O’Day

J. A.

(1991). Systemic school reform. In Fuhrman

S. H.

Malen

(Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233-267). London: Falmer.

67.

Southern Regional Education Board. (2006). Schools can’t wait: Accelerating the redesign of university principal preparation programs. Atlanta, GA: Author.

68.

Spillane

J. P.

Hallett

Diamond

J. B.

(2003). Forms of capital and the construction of leadership: Leadership in urban elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 76(1), 1-17.

69.

Spillane

J. P.

Halverson

Diamond

J. B.

(2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.

70.

Standard & Poor’s School Evaluation Service. (2005, May). Fact or fiction: Data tells the story behind America’s urban school districts. Retrieved from http://datacenter.spps.org/sites/2259653e-ffb3-45ba-8fd6-04a024ecf7a4/uploads/school_matters__fact_or_fiction2005.pdf

71.

Stogdill

R. M.

Coons

A. E.

(Eds.). (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

72.

Stoll

Temperley

(2009). Creative leadership: A challenge of our times. School Leadership and Management, 29(1), 65-78.

73.

Taylor

(2002). The effective schools process: Alive and well. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), 375.

74.

Taylor

B. M.

Pearson

P. D.

Peterson

D. S.

Rodriguez

M. C.

(2005). The CIERA school change framework; An evidence-based approach to professional development and school reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 2-32.

75.

Tyler

R. W.

(1987). Education reforms. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(4), 277-280.

76.

Waxman

Padron

(1995). Improving the quality of classroom instruction for students at risk of failure in urban schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(2), 44-65.

77.

Wharton-McDonald

Pressley

Hampton

J. M.

(1998). Literacy instruction in nine first grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. Elementary School Journal, 99, 101-128.