It’s a Different World at the High School

Case Narrative

The Horizon School District is situated in a predominately rural, blue-collar community, and the largest town within the district has a population of 8,400. Enrolling approximately 2,300 students, the district includes three elementary schools containing Grades kindergarten through 5, one middle school encompassing Grades 6 through 8, and one high school for Grades 9 through 12. Due to its proximity to a large urban center, the district gradually has become more diverse. Currently, 73% of the Horizon K-12 student enrollment is White, with 10% African American, 13% Latino/a, 1% American Indian, and 3% biracial; 37% of the students qualify for free or reduced lunches. Nearly 60% of the district’s teachers are graduates of the district, and only 6% of the faculty are persons of color. The faculty averages 16.4 years of experience.

The elementary schools and middle school typically perform well on state assessments, with 88% of elementary and 85% of middle school students meeting or exceeding state standards in all subjects in 2011. Some achievement gaps were present between minority and White students, but the schools consistently have made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). However, Horizon High School (HHS), with an enrollment of 710 students, has experienced a decline in standardized test scores over the past 5 years. The proportion of students meeting or exceeding standards on state assessments in 2011 was as follows: reading, 50%; writing, 53%; mathematics, 41%; and science, 48%. Achievement gaps were noted for economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and Latino/a students. HHS did not meet AYP in 2011 and was placed on the state’s Academic Watch Status. Nearly half of HHS graduates typically pursue postsecondary education but a high percentage drop out of college.

Mr. LeRoy Davidson, Horizon School District superintendent the past 13 years, retired at the end of the 2011-2012 school year. A beloved father figure to the district staff, his self-described leadership style consisted of “hiring the best teachers and getting out of the way so they can teach.” His responsibilities included school board relations, district policy oversight, transportation, facilities, public relations, and financial affairs. Assistant Superintendent Bonnie Thomas was in charge of curriculum, special education, and human resources. Intending to retire at the end of the upcoming year, Bonnie did not apply for the superintendency.

A Superintendent Is Selected

The Horizon Board of Education contracted with a superintendent search firm to facilitate the superintendent search. Four finalists were identified, but two withdrew from consideration after interviewing. The remaining candidates were

The Board was bitterly divided as they considered the two finalists, with some preferring an outsider who might transform the district and others favoring the in-district candidate, who was endorsed by the faculty, as someone who would maintain the status quo. After lengthy debate and a 4-3 vote, the Board extended a contract offer to Dr. Morris. Undeterred by the split vote and confident that she would win over any skeptics, Sheila immediately accepted, informing the Board president she was “thrilled to serve as your first female superintendent.” She telephoned Mr. Williamson after her appointment was announced, saying that she hoped there were no hard feelings and that she looked forward to working with him to enact district reforms. He extended his congratulations to her, with a tinge of disappointment in his voice.

The New Superintendent Settles In

Dr. Morris’s tenure as superintendent began on July 1, 2012, and she immersed herself in a whirlwind of activities: familiarizing herself with district facilities, policies, and routines; meeting with Board members; attending community events; meeting with the teachers union president; and introducing herself to faculty and staff. Her informal conversations with Board members and their interactions during the first Board meeting revealed a more fractured group than Sheila had realized. A few members warmly welcomed her, reaffirming that they looked forward to her ideas for reforms, particularly at the high school. Others, including Board President Billy Randle, were more reserved, suggesting that the district was on a positive course. Her conversation with Assistant Superintendent Thomas confirmed her suspicions about differing leadership styles across the district. Bonnie explained that the elementary and middle school principals were skilled instructional leaders with high academic expectations. These principals regularly observed classrooms and engaged their faculty in the analysis of student learning data. Evaluations addressed student learning, and teachers were held accountable for implementing the district curriculum and promoting student academic growth.

The high school culture stood in stark contrast to the other buildings. Bonnie explained that Mr. Williamson was more interested in keeping in the good graces of influential community members than he was in improving student learning. As a transactional leader, he regularly bartered with his staff. The inside joke among the faculty was that you should never agree to do anything for free, because Bruce ultimately would promise some benefit in exchange for your support. Teachers asserted they were the disciplinary experts and the high school administrators deferred to their expertise, whether it was warranted or not. Teacher observations conducted by Williamson and his assistant principal were perfunctory; most teachers received excellent evaluations and were given few, if any, recommendations for instructional improvement. Analysis of student learning data was virtually nonexistent, except for a few untenured teachers who were sincerely interested in improving student learning. As administrator in charge of the curriculum, Bonnie held regular vertical K-12 curriculum team meetings. High school teachers’ participation was sporadic, and when they did attend, they were condescending to the elementary and middle school teachers. When questioned about inadequate high school student performance, they blamed others: the students for being poorly motivated, parents for being uninterested in their children’s education, and the middle school faculty for inadequately preparing students for the rigors of high school. Bonnie had invited Bruce to participate in the vertical team meetings but he declined.

Dr. Morris met with each principal during the month of July, reviewing building goals, school improvement plans (SIPs), and the principals’ personal goals for the upcoming year. Sheila offered insights and suggestions, encouraging the administrators to take risks and to push their faculty and students to higher levels of performance. All principals were positive and embraced these challenges, except Bruce. His SIP was skeletal; when Sheila suggested modification, he stated she should “get to know my teachers before forcing any changes.” Leading the administrative retreat on August 1, Dr. Morris described her vision of excellence for the district, focusing on her role as change agent and learning leader. She shared the five SIPs among the administrators and began the process of identifying district goals with the team. All administrators appeared invigorated by the retreat and excited about the potential for meaningful reforms, except the high school principals. Sheila overhead them whispering that they had quite a bit of work to do in their offices.

In late August, Sheila gave the keynote address at the back-to-school teacher workshops. She described her personal experiences, noted her personal goals for the year, and shared her vision for Horizon: “A District Committed to Excellence.” She announced that she would visit each school within the next month to meet with each faculty group. The high school teachers appeared to be less receptive to her address than the other teachers, but Sheila assumed they were reserving judgment because of her background as an elementary teacher and administrator.

The Open Door Policy Is Embraced

Arriving at her office early one morning 2 weeks after classes began, Sheila was surprised to discover that she was scheduled to meet with a parent group later that morning. Her secretary apologetically explained, “The parents said they were taking her up on her open-door policy.” Eight parents arrived at the appointed hour. Spokesperson Monica Ramirez stated that they represented numerous parents, most of whom were persons of color, not college educated, and recent district residents, who were concerned about their children’s high school experiences. They were pleased with the elementary and middle schools but found the high school culture to be dramatically different: The faculty’s norms and practices were deeply entrenched and school policies privileged some individuals over others. “The principals and teachers do not take our concerns seriously and our children aren’t given access to the best teachers and advanced courses,” Mrs. Ramirez said. “Our children’s education is being seriously compromised, and this will affect them for their entire adult lives.” Mr. Franklin, an African American parent, added, “If you are a minority, a new resident, or poor, your voice isn’t heard.” Sheila began to take notes, occasionally asking clarification questions.

Mrs. Ramirez presented a document outlining several concerns (appendix). The parents took turns describing each issue and explained that, although most were applicable to minority and “poor” students, many practices disadvantaged any student who was unlucky enough to experience them. Glancing at the list, Sheila became increasingly disturbed, as she noted many inequitable practices that disenfranchised students and parents. The parents stated they had repeatedly attempted to speak with Principal Williamson and the former superintendent. The administrators merely referred them to the teachers or counselors, saying that they were empowered to address the concerns. Nothing ever changed. When the parents concluded their presentation, Dr. Morris thanked them and said, “If these allegations are correct, I am deeply upset. I will investigate and I promise changes will be made.” She cautioned that it would take some time to fully review each issue and asked for patience during this period. Mrs. Ramirez said, “We appreciate that you are looking into this. Please know that, if these issues are not resolved, we will speak to the Board and also to the newspaper editor.”

Dr. Morris checked her schedule after the parents were dismissed, finding she was booked for the remainder of the afternoon and thus could not immediately speak with Mr. Williamson. However, her high school faculty visit was scheduled that afternoon. Sheila asked her secretary to scan the document and attach it to Bruce, along with an email message stating they would discuss these concerns immediately after the faculty meeting.

A Less-Than-Welcoming Faculty Reception

Dr. Morris arrived at the high school that afternoon, joining the faculty in the school library. The tension was palpable as she entered the room and it immediately became clear that Bruce had forwarded her email and the parent document to the entire faculty. What Sheila had anticipated would be a 20-min pleasant meeting quickly deteriorated into 70 min of emotion-filled speeches. The teachers spoke of their struggles to maintain high academic standards while the district experienced a changing clientele, as growing numbers of students moved into the district who were unmotivated, academically unprepared, and lacking parental support. Tonya Greene, a Language Arts teacher, explained that “these kids just are not interested in getting an education and most of them aren’t capable of being successful in college”; many heads nodded in agreement.

Other teachers asserted that, because they were the subject area experts, the administration should fully support them. Teachers Union President Tom Davis explained that, as was evidenced by their personnel evaluations, the high school staff was excellent. “Sure, a few things might need minor tweaking,” he said, “but we are doing a great job here at the high school. After all, our test scores are not that far below the state average.” April Petersen, the science department chair who was close to tears, agreed: “Considering the students we have, we are doing fine. Personally, I am offended that a few disgruntled parents—who obviously do not want to be held accountable for the poor performance of their children—are trying to blame us for their lack of parenting skills.”

Carol Randle spoke up: “I am the American History teacher who fails a lot of students. I have high standards unlike some of my colleagues, who give high grades to students for doing next to nothing. Do you expect me to just give in to these pressures? I refuse to accept mediocrity on the part of my students.” A few teachers described being attracted to the district because they were able to select their children’s teachers, and because the administration historically had protected them from “hostile, uninformed, and uneducated parents.” Throughout the meeting, Bruce Williamson sat at the side of the room with a barely perceptible grin on his face. Tempted to immediately respond to many statements, Sheila remained silent, because she had told the teachers her purpose this afternoon was simply to listen. Concluding the session, she thanked the faculty and reiterated her appreciation for having an opportunity to visit. Holding her composure as the teachers filed out, she informed Bruce they needed to reschedule their conference: She would see him in her office at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

Driving back to her office, Sheila reflected on the teachers’ remarks and visualized the smug look on Bruce’s face. Clearly it was going to be a challenge to turn around the deficit thinking of the high school faculty and administrators! Her thoughts were interrupted by her vibrating cellphone; it was Board President Randle. “Hey Sheila,” he said. “You might not know this, but my wife teaches at the high school. She just called and said the entire faculty is as mad as a hornet’s nest. We’ve got a huge problem here, and I want to talk to you first thing tomorrow morning. I’ll be in your office at 7:00 a.m.” He abruptly hung up, leaving Sheila alone with her thoughts as she pondered today’s events and tomorrow’s upcoming challenges.

Teaching Notes

This case describes initial conflicts experienced by a new superintendent that involve faculty resistance and diminished academic expectations at the high school, compared with the district’s other schools. Compounding the situation is the fact that the Board of Education was bitterly divided when reaching their superintendent hiring decision, with several members supporting the current high school principal. Fueled by numerous parent complaints regarding discriminatory treatment of their children, the superintendent is confronted by a high school faculty who aggressively defend their practices and a high school principal who appears to be undermining her authority.

As they prepare to discuss this case, students may wish to read research related to leadership for social justice (Brown, 2004; Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2007; Theoharis, 2007) and leadership for learning (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Knapp, Copland, Honig, Plecki, & Portin, 2010). These publications will be helpful for the students to gain an understanding of the superintendent’s beliefs as she prepares to lead her new district.

Discussion Questions