A Case Study of Middle Grades Leadership in a Conversion Charter School

Understanding Young Adolescent Characteristics

Understanding young adolescent characteristics is fundamental to all other effective middle grades leadership practices (Clark & Clark, 2008; National Middle School Association, 2003). The most prominent findings related to this DRMLL construct was the limited number of instances in which the principals discussed or commented on the developmental characteristics of young adolescents. There were only nine such instances across all principal interviews. Mr. Dee exemplified his understanding of the developmental nature of young adolescents when directly asked where and how he learned to deal with middle school students:

In my previous school in [southwest state] we had a middle school and a high school. . . . There’s high school, you know, they are all mostly about 16, 17, 18 years old; and they drive cars and they have driver’s license; and sometimes they work, and they have more maturity level. But in the middle school . . . kind of childish stuff.

One of Mr. Dee’s only comments directly associated with middle school student characteristics was, “Behavior is always some concern in middle schools . . . they might be smart . . . their behavior is . . . getting in their way.”

Most of the nine code instances outlined the principals’ general desire to provide a safe, caring environment, a middle grades tenant (Brown & Anfara, 2002). Yet these occurrences did not indicate a direct understanding of the needs of middle grades students, as indicated by Mr. Dee, who described his role working with middle school students:

It’s a safe learning environment for the kids. . . . That’s my first responsibility to provide that setting. . . . It was another responsible [sic] of mine to let the students know we care. We care about the students and we really want them to be successful.

Both principals focused on a safe environment because a plethora of issues surfaced with respect to student discipline during the course of the study. Student disruptive behavior was the code with the largest number of instances in the original study, including a total of 98 coded instances. Mr. Sam expressed that one of his major accomplishments in his first year at KMS was decreasing fighting, a statement that exposed his perceptions of the nature of middle school students:

When I first came here there was a little fight and then the whole school is affected. But now if there is a fight, it’s a middle school and we have some tough kids and they will fight, we know that. They told me it’s a tough school. If there is a fight, we broke up the fight, we send them home and we counsel students, we take action. . . . We keep sending the correct message, which is we are firm. . . . Sometimes middle school age they goof around a little bit so they will have to hear it more often.

His underlying assumption that middle school students will fight, particularly at his “tough” school, and that young adolescents goof around, are the only data recorded in interviews with Mr. Sam concerning the social, emotional, or psychological characteristics of middle school students beyond the stated general desire for a caring school culture.

Teacher interviews suggested that principals did not understand young adolescents’ characteristics or needs. Instead, teachers commented on their frustration with principals’ lack of involvement with students and suggested they were unprepared for this age group and setting. As Ms. Holly noted at the end of her second year at KMS, “My students don’t see Mr. Sam a lot; and when they do, he doesn’t talk to them that much.” When asked what the two principals at her school could have done to better understand student needs, teacher Ms. Patty replied:

You have to be active to see what’s going on in the school and with your student body population. You cannot stay in your office; You cannot sit there. . . . You cannot do that! You have to be walking around this school and see what’s going on.

Teachers attributed lack of interaction and visibility as a consequence of being unprepared to deal with middle grades students, resulting in ineffective practices, particularly related to dealing with student behavior. Mr. Grant worked with both Mr. Dee and Mr. Sam and summarized participating teachers’ perceptions:

I would say it’s two who care about the kids and want them to do well and they weren’t in there for nefarious reasons or anything like that; they were just two people who were confronted with a lot of the challenges of middle school low-income students and were not equipped to handle it and were not prepared.

Mr. Grant commented after his second year at KMS that it was as if the principals were “afraid to interact with students.”

Observations also confirmed teacher perceptions that principals appeared underprepared to deal directly with students and avoided doing so. We observed no one-on-one conversations with students other than commands associated with compliance to rules.

Several teachers speculated why principals were unprepared to understand this age group. Aware of the principals’ backgrounds, teachers suggested that they did not have the educational training to lead and understand students. Additionally, teachers implied that having been educated outside of the United States and having limited exposure to U.S. culture affected their understanding of the students at KMS. As an example, in a follow-up question about why Ms. Camp thought that Mr. Sam was not effectively dealing with student discipline issues, Ms. Camp reasoned that the principal’s lack of training was the issue. She stated, “I don’t know that he had the skills. . . . I don’t know what, like; did they get an administrator’s degree? I tried to look it up on the Louisiana [Department of Education] website and I couldn’t tell.” Some teachers did not identify directly that formal training was a reason for principals’ ineffectively understanding middle grades students. However, over the course of 3 years, teachers expressed in some form or another that principals were “unprepared or unequipped” to deal with students.

Additionally, teachers expressed that principals had difficulty understanding and dealing with middle grades students due to their cultural background. KMS was a part of a network of schools loosely associated with a charter management nonprofit organization, which in turn was associated with a religious organization based outside the United States. Administrators of these network schools generally were immigrants, as was the case with Mr. Dee and Mr. Sam. Ms. Hickman provided the most direct example of how administrators’ cultural background affected their understanding of students’ needs and discipline issues at KMS. She shared:

We did a play about Brown v. Board of Education . . . [he] had no idea. Like, that’s fine I know you’re from a different culture but this is public school in America! This is like public school 101. We were talking about segregation, never known about that stuff? . . . And, he’s trying with the discipline, I think he’s working real hard. I don’t think that he gets the, he doesn’t get the social nuances. . . . He’s just not getting any social clues; he just doesn’t have any kind of cultural awareness.

Ms. Hickman was astounded that Mr. Dee had no prior knowledge of Brown v. The Board of Education, a landmark case with implications regarding segregation in the United States. Her comment highlighted the principals’ lack of cultural awareness and knowledge, which seemed to affect how they managed and dealt with students and student discipline. The lack of principals’ discussion of specific characteristics of young adolescents, observations indicating little interactions with students, and teacher’s comments about principals being unequipped to interact and work with students led us to conclude that principals had limited understanding of young adolescent characteristics as outlined by the DRMLL model.

Learning Environment

A lack of understanding of young adolescent characteristics in combination with the high organizational management demands and the principals’ focus on improved student achievement as measured by state testing seemed to negatively affect implementation of school structures, policies, and curriculum that reflected responsiveness to young adolescent. Data revealed that both principals discussed the high demands placed on charter school principals as a result of the autonomy given them. These demands often competed with developing a responsive and positive student environment. As Mr. Sam outlined:

At a charter school . . . you have to wear lots of hats. Like, you don’t have any recruitment coordinator, you don’t have any, you know, finance coordinator; you’ve got to do everything by yourself. You are, like, you are it, like you are responsible for everything.

“Everything” included the duties of a traditional principal with additional activities such as marketing the school in order to attract students, contracting for food, busses, accounting/finance management, custodial and maintenance services, grant writing, and completing and submitting all state reports. With no organizational support for recruiting and hiring teachers, nor support for providing special education services or for securing professional development, these duties fell directly within the principal’s purview. The time Mr. Dee spent on charter-related and organizational management issues when opening the school the first year were particularly high, as he explained:

In July, it was pretty busy. I was dealing with the building but also student enrollment and teacher recruitment. . . . So after we opened up the school on August the 6th, the enrollment kind of speeded up like end of July. We had 450 enrollment goal, we met our goal and we have about 50 staff members including the supporting personnel . . . secretaries, paraprofessionals and some others.

Even after opening the school, student recruitment and hiring personnel consumed much of the principals’ time in the spring and summers. Other charter-related managerial tasks also demanded much of the principals’ time. In quarterly interviews, principals reported dealing with charter-specific leadership duties more often than might be associated with traditional principal activities, and included grant preparation, contracting for support services, and recruiting teachers and students. Similar to traditional principals, they also reported spending much time dealing with student behavior and preparing teachers and students for state testing.

Teachers confirmed that charter management duties consumed principals’ time and that these activities were the principals’ strengths. In a follow-up question to Ms. Holly about why principals were not visible she represented how teachers viewed the principals’ leadership:

Like promoting our school; I feel like looking at our website and all that kind of stuff, our school is amazing. And just having people come visit; we’ve had state senators . . . come in and see our school and talk about how great it is. So I guess almost just like public relations, just the business side of things. Because, I feel like the administration . . . is just kind of, is in the office most times and that they kind of run the school like a business.

Our analysis of “running the school like a business” meant dealing primarily with the charter-related and general management issues of the school. Charter-related management issues surfaced as a second factor that precluded principals from concentrating on developing programs, policies, curriculum, and procedures that reflected the characteristics of young adolescents.

The third issue that appeared to negatively affect developing an environment conducive to young adolescents was the principals’ seemingly singular focus on state testing. Although one descriptor for responsiveness to students in the DRMLL model is a belief that all students can succeed, success in middle grades education is not equated primarily with higher test scores. Instead, high expectations center on the whole child, developing “programs and practices that help young people grow up healthy, caring, and responsible” (Brown & Anfara, 2002, p. 63). Mr. Dee, Mr. Sam, and each teacher, however, expressed that increasing state test scores was the highest priority for principals. Within the code category principal priorities, the count of 62 instances of state testing was nearly triple that of the next highest code, student discipline. Beyond the volume of codes instances, principals directly stated and reiterated that their major concern and goal was to improve student test scores. The following quote by Mr. Dee represents one of several given by each principal outlining the directness of principals’ stated priorities:

The Staring Foundation, our mission is to make sure all of our students go to college and graduate from a college . . . but, you know, my major goal is raising test scores. Like, you’ve got to worry about parents; you’ve got to worry about transportation, special ed., finance, facility, you know, lesson plans, school culture, discipline. . . . I am worried about everything, but the main part is raising test scores.

Principals perceived that raising tests scores was the primary indicator of school improvement and student success, and necessary to keep their charter from being revoked. They further believed raising test scores presented a positive image of the school that would in turn attract students and garner political support. Teachers also communicated that raising test scores was the primary goal of the principals. Every teacher interviewed over the 3 years articulated the same sentiment as Ms. Carter, “His obvious goal is to raise the school’s SPS [School Performance Score—the school’s school-wide state testing score].”

Improving test scores permeated how principals designed programs, created policies, and implemented curriculum and procedures, often at the expense of developmentally appropriate practices. The following information was culled from data and exemplifies how raising test scores pervaded instructional and curricular decision making: Test preparation programs were purchased and teachers were required to use them extensively in tested subject as major portions of instructional time; teachers were evaluated and rehired based primarily on student test scores; teacher bonuses were based on improving student test scores; and students earned incentives for improving scores on the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP) state accountability test. Additionally, other than athletics, supplemental student activities were based on motivating students to do well on state testing. Mr. Dee defined how principals viewed the curriculum and instructional program related to student testing in the following passage as he discussed teacher use of instructional time:

Teaching a subject that won’t be even on the test, that’s, like, unrelated stuff. And sometimes they were . . . spending a whole bunch of time on some content that has only a very small portion on the test; there might be only maybe one or two questions on one content but they were spending like four weeks or three weeks. . . . It’s stealing from everybody, wasting time is wasting money.

Teachers confirmed that both principals singularly based the instructional program and curriculum decisions on state testing, not student needs, and required teachers to use test preparation materials as the foundation of instruction. Ms. Foster articulated this practice:

They [administration] would send emails stating, “Teach . . . teach LEAP book.” Teachers would send an email back stating, “Well, you know, I have students in my class that can’t even multiply and you want me to teach out of a LEAP Coach book?” . . . I come from a background where you teach from a curriculum, you meet the students where they are, and we’ll worry about the LEAP when it’s almost LEAP time, not at, you now, throughout the year. . . . We need to give them what they need, you know?

The focus on state testing also generated expensive student intervention programs that included implementing Saturday school, pulling students from elective classes for extra tutoring, and after school tutoring. Principals concentrated on developing support structures for intervention programs rather than attempting to improve classroom instruction. Although there was an abundance of evidence that testing drove a narrowed curricular program, we found no evidence in 3 years that the principals fostered or promoted any integrative or exploratory curricular program relevant to young adolescents’ concerns, foundational principles of middle grades education, and leadership (Beane, 1993; Jackson & Davis, 2000; National Middle School Association, 2010b).

Principals also structured the school schedule and student motivational activities to foster state test performance, counter to young adolescents’ needs and practices. Both principals used academic tracking extensively; however, we noted Mr. Dee used academic tracking to a greater extent than Mr. Sam. Mr. Dee developed six different tracks of students in each grade based on the previous year’s state testing and suggested this extensive tracking was a positive way to support improvement in student state testing; there was no mention that the practice might be counterproductive to young adolescents’ development. Observations indicated that assemblies and student rewards were most often developed to motivate students to achieve on state testing. In one observation, Mr. Sam brought classes into the library to tell them that their school was counting on them to improve their test scores; he showed them how the local TV station had run a program highlighting KMS as a D rated school among state schools ranked from A to F, while all other charter middle school in the area were F schools. Mr. Dee stated it was the students’ duty to perform well on the test to help improve the school’s rating. Additionally, documents collected and interviews confirmed students could earn rewards to Disneyland and iPads for improved performance on state testing.

Lack of experience, little understanding of young adolescents and local culture, and a singular focus on testing may also have resulted in designing some programs, policies, and procedures that were in opposition to adolescent characteristics. These issues surfaced particularly regarding student discipline. While both principals desired a caring and safe environment, they struggled with how to deal with student behavior. Over the course of 3 years, principals and teachers were continually frustrated and struggled with student discipline issues. Most critical of student behavior issues in the school, Ms. Camp shared, “It feels more and more chaotic and there’s no discipline and there’s no—it was awful.” This same tone permeated many of the teacher interviews related to the lack of student discipline. Rather than working at proactively developing collaborative relationship among peers and adults through such activities as teacher and student teaming and student advisories as outlined in the middle grades literature (Clark & Clark, 2008; Jackson & Davis, 2000; National Middle School Association, 2010b), these two principals tried various structural changes to deal with student behavior. As behavior issues escalated before the winter holiday in Year 1, Mr. Dee tried several approaches:

We started another implementation with the discipline and monitoring the hallways and the classrooms. I split—we have three main hallways—and I assigned one of the discipline people to each hallway. So during the break time and . . . and during lunches they are taking care of each hallway. . . . We started this behavior tracking system with some of the trouble-maker students. I’m working on a behavior plan for the student who has [sic] the tendency to get in trouble.

Mr. Sam seemed to have the greater struggles with student discipline his first year as KMS principal. A month before the end of his first year, he instituted a no backpack rule, although students did not have lockers; in his second year (Year 3 of the study), he implemented a metal detection and pat down search of students every morning. In Year 3, a teacher-initiated Positive Behavior and Interventions System was implemented, one of the few instances where teachers were integrally involved in school-wide discussions.

Connecting to Processes of Teaching and Learning

Both principals articulated a philosophy that their job as leaders was finding the best teachers possible and then giving teachers the autonomy to teach. These principals provided motivation to improve student performance through teacher bonuses but had a hands-off approach to classroom instruction. Mr. Sam delineated his philosophy:

I don’t see my job, like, teaching every teacher how to teach because, you know, it’s their job, you know, they went to school for four years for that. . . . If they get a degree from [local university] . . . I’m pretty confident that . . . they know at least they know something.

When asked about working with teachers in order to improve their instruction, Mr. Dee stated,

My role, I’m of service for the teachers. I’m not in the classroom. So in the first hand, they are the ones who are making the influence in the beginning of the process. My role is to make the teachers feel enough comfortable to work at this school.

Principals generally expected that teachers were responsible for instruction and the principal was a support outside of instructional issues. Although principals encouraged teachers to use certain instructional programs such as Accelerated Reader© (AR), or promoted benchmark tests to make instructional decisions, principals did not provide ongoing professional development to implement specific instructional strategies or support curricular integration.

Principals also expressed that their myriad duties as charter principals often pulled them away from their involvement in supporting the instructional program. Mr. Sam represented both principals when he stated, “A charter school principal has more responsibilities. So I think, like, and it takes from being an instructional leader.” Mr. Dee also discussed how grant deadlines and state accountability reports interfered with classroom visits:

There are deadlines and stuff and at the same time I want to make sure, you know, I provide enough support to the teachers on a daily basis. . . . I need to walk around and I need to make visitations-classroom, visitations discipline-wise plus academic-wise. I should be able to, kind of, give some feedback to the teachers.

The additional duties of a charter principal appeared to keep them from the kind of connection with teachers and instructional issues that proponents of middle grades’ leadership suggest.

Principals expressed a desire to be more connected with teachers and instruction, but data indicated they had limited instructional background and skill sets to do so. Both principals came from a STEM background, English was their second language, and neither had taught an extended period of time. Mr. Dee was more comfortable giving feedback to teachers, but Mr. Sam’s analysis of his ability to support instruction was more in tune with teachers’ perceptions. When asked how confident he was in given teachers ideas about how to teach, he stated,

I’m confident with helping them with their work, but not teaching, not teaching. I depend on our department heads and other people. I give feedback on classroom management or teaching style or, you know, other things. General [sic], but not specifically.

Teachers, on the other hand, were clear that they rarely saw the principals in the classroom and that principals’ skills at providing effective instructional feedback were minimal. Ms. Camp was the most experienced teachers in the study, having served with four principals prior to KMS. She was also the most critical. However, she expressed the general sentiment of teachers when asked how the principal had supported her instructionally:

The principal was useless. The assistant principal had some instructions for us, like, “Your grades are due by here. I’m shutting down the grade book at this time.” So it was very commanding, but it had nothing to do with real instruction.

Professional Development for Meeting the Needs of Young Adolescents

Principals did organize the school such that department chairs and grade-level leaders were intended to provide instructional support to teachers. However, principals rarely provided instructional direction to department chairs other than promoting the use of purchased instructional programs such as AR or using benchmark tests to make instructional decisions. Teachers Foster, Hickman, Patty, and Holly all acted as department chairs at some point during the 3 years of the study. Ms. Hickman shared that the effectiveness of department and grade-level meetings were limited as chairs received little direct support from principals. She stated, “He’s not leading. We have department meetings; we don’t have an administrator come. We have grade-level meetings; there’s no administrator there. So, therefore people want to get out of there and they just end the meeting fast.” When asked if the principal met with her as the department- or grade-level chair, Ms. Patty further noted:

No, but what I do is after our meetings, he doesn’t attend our meetings, I’ll email him and copy our assistant principal on my agenda and they may respond to it or say something; but most of the time it’s kind of, like, what I want to talk about.

Reciprocally, however, department- and grade-level chairs were not given input into school-wide issues related to instruction. Ms. Patty continued, “But as far as decision making goes, I mean, it’s kind of, like, out the window. So we really don’t have any input.” As with teaching in general, the principals expected the department- and grade-level chairs to use their expertise to improve instruction for their groups without structured guidance, support, or monitoring, and to do so without allowing designated leaders’ input into schoolwide decisions.

Other than department- and grade-level meetings to improve instruction, there was limited evidence that professional development was provided to teachers. Both principals’ primary method of professional development for teachers was having outside speakers train or present for 1 hour to 3 days. Mr. Dee outlined the process and content of his professional development.

We brainstorm with teachers what we need. We kind of make a needs assessment. . . . We, you know, invite some other speakers from [local university] or some other resources. We provide classroom management, differentiated instruction, effective learning, meaningful learning.

Teachers interviewed did not support that they were invited to provide input into professional development with either principal. Occasionally the principal asked some teachers to attend off-campus trainings provided by the state. Mr. Graves described these trainings as, “We did these, like, Super Saturday things where some teachers got to go; and we were supposed to present them to the entire school but we didn’t really do that.” From interviews, observations, and artifacts related to professional development, we found no training sessions specifically designed to addresses the characteristics and needs of young adolescents. In the second year of the study, however, a classroom management and student motivation presenter gave some tips that helped teachers deal with student behavior. Ms. Grave, Ms. Holly, and Ms. Camp said that the training was very helpful in understanding middle school student behavior.

In summary, there was little evidence that principals encouraged teachers to employ a wide variety of instructional and assessment approaches or created opportunities for professional learning that addressed strategies to meet the needs of young adolescents. Instead, we found principals’ limited understanding of young adolescences, that additional duties as a charter principal, overall inexperience, and a philosophy of teacher autonomy interfered with their practices as developmentally responsive leaders.

Collaboration and Relationships

Organizing the school to foster collaboration, relationships, and integrative curriculum is a key component of the middle grades concept. Interdisciplinary teacher teams sharing the same students are a hallmark of middle grades education (George & Alexander, 2003; National Middle School Association, 2003). Neither principal organized the school around this concept. Interestingly, over the course of 3 years, the words interdisciplinary or teaming were never recorded by any participant. The term cross-curricular appeared once when Ms. Hickman was asked about reading initiatives at the school: “They [administration] just have the reading interventions but no cross-curricular reading.” Students were not scheduled so that they had the same core teachers, nor were teachers grouped together for instruction even through the principals organized the school by grade level, placing the same grade-level core academic teachers on the same hall. Rather than interdisciplinary teams having a common period off, teachers of the same subjects had a common planning period but rarely planned together. Principals never discussed interdisciplinary curriculum or projects, with the exception of Mr. Dee stating that many non-science teachers helped get science projects ready for the science fair the first year the school opened.

Another key element of collaboration in the DRMLL model is shared decision making (Anfara et al., 2006; Jackson & Davis, 2000; National Middle School Association, 2010b). Principals did not share decision making with those outside the administration. When asked who besides himself developed the school mission statement as the school opened the first year, Mr. Dee stated:

My assistant principal and test coordinator. We took some of the recommendations of the teachers . . . we brainstorm what we need for our school what we can set up for our mission statement so. It’s very similar to what we have in [other foundation school].

When probed about whether the same group wrote the school improvement plan, he stated, “No, it was pretty much me. . . . I’m kind of pretty much the only person dealing with that. And I know what the school needs.” Neither principal had a leadership team outside the administration, yet each believed that he garnered teacher opinions informally as described by Mr. Dee:

I try to get some feedbacks. I kind of say, you know, “I have this idea, what do you think about it?” Pretty much that I value their [teachers] opinion . . . and then I talk to my assistant principals, and then we make a decision.

Teachers confirmed they were not involved in decisions and expressed mixed reactions on whether teacher opinions were valued. Ms. Patty, the only teacher interviewed who remained at the school for the 3 years of the study, specially confirmed the school’s decision process:

No, we don’t have a leadership team, however, I think certain teachers he respects or whatever the case is, or he values their opinion. He may ask their suggestions or feedback on certain things, but no, we don’t have collectively, as a staff, given input.

Ms. Dolce further expressed the views of other teachers concerning school community input: “People didn’t have voice, whether they were kids, teachers, or parents, unless they were the right people.” The only exception to the lack of formal input by teachers occurred in the third year when Mr. Sam instituted two teacher committees, one for improving student behavior and the other for test preparation.

Student Activities

Proponents of middle grades education suggest activities be implemented in schools that promote student exploration and develop adult capacity to advocate for and support individual student development (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Student activities at KMS involved a competitive sports program and several activity programs for selected students. The school sponsored a robotics team that included 5 to 8 selected students each year. There was an annual science fair. All students were required to participate the first year, while in Years 2 and 2, they were highly encouraged. Also in the second and third years the school hosted a math contest for local schools and selective students were encouraged to participate. Additionally, the school subsidized trips for a small number of selected students to the country from which the principals emigrated. All these activities were highly publicized as a recruiting tool for the school; posters and banners were displayed at the school and on billboards in the city and on the school’s website, highlighting students who received awards in these competitions and who participated in travel abroad. There were no data that principals promoted activities or structures that allowed all students to explore a wide variety of activities.

There also was no evidence that principals organized structures that developed individualized personal support for students. Student advisory, a structure suggested by middle grades advocates to personalize the school environment, was not implemented by either principal. Mr. Dee suggested developing an advisory/mentoring program for students with major discipline issues, yet this program never came to fruition. There was never a “homeroom” designation or any other scheduling over the 3 years that suggested structures were developed in which adults were assigned to be advocates for small groups of students. The one previously discussed professional development tangentially provided some insight into young adolescent behavior; however, there was no training over the 3 years that helped teachers to learn to advocate for young adolescents.