Under Pressure: Leadership for Literacy and Cultural Responsiveness

Abstract

This case considers the literacy leadership practices of Principal Howard at Pinecrest Academy Title I elementary school in the southeastern United States. An award-winning school, Pinecrest Academy serves over 500 students, 98% of whom are students of color. Through the lens of instructional leadership for literacy and culturally responsive school leadership for literacy, this case study examines how the principal used school improvement planning to (a) bolster the literacy outcomes of third-grade students of color, (b) form partnerships with the parents and families of third-grade students of color to increase literacy outcomes, and (c) reframe the literacy focus when external and internal factors threatened to derail the school’s progress.

Keywords

school improvement literacy culturally responsive education

Case Narrative/Background

Pinecrest Academy (all names are pseudonyms) is an urban Title I elementary school in the southeastern United States. Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, provides financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with high populations or high percentages of children from low-income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2018, para. 1). One hundred percent of the Pinecrest Academy students are economically disadvantaged. In addition, Pinecrest has a high percentage of students of color. Of the over 500 students in the school, 93.9% are African American, almost 3% are Hispanic/Latino, one fifth of a percent are American Indian or Alaskan Native, and almost 2% are multiracial.

The principal of Pinecrest Academy, Joanna Howard, is an African American female who serves in the community where she grew up. An educator for 27 years, Principal Howard worked as a teacher and an assistant principal before becoming principal of Pinecrest 14 years ago. Principal Howard holds a Specialist Degree in education. Her background in middle grades English Language Arts (ELA) and her National Board Certification in Early Adolescent ELA prepared her to support work in upper elementary ELA. She was quite comfortable supervising teachers who taught students to read to learn; however, her background did not provide her with the expertise to supervise and lead teachers in early literacy (reading and writing) instruction. Through professional development and help from expert peers and colleagues, Principal Howard built her content knowledge for early literacy.

Using her knowledge of early literacy and reading to learn, Principal Howard worked with her school improvement team to forge a path to reading proficiency for the students of Pinecrest. In 2014, <26% of the third-grade students at Pinecrest scored at or above proficiency on the statewide reading assessment. By 2020, Pinecrest Academy received a state honor for improving all students’ academic performance over 2 years on the statewide assessment, from Fall 2017 to Spring 2019. In July 2019, the state reported that over 55% of the third-grade students at Pinecrest scored at or above proficiency on the statewide reading assessment.

Principal Howard chose to focus on her third-graders’ reading proficiency because it is a predictor of future success, academically and economically (Fiester, 2013). It is also the point at which students may shift from learning to read to reading to learn (Hernandez, 2011). Thus, the academic and employment success of students of color is at least partially determined by their ability to read. Prior to the school closings in March 2020, Principal Howard and her team outlined the path to reading proficiency in the Pinecrest Academy’s school improvement plans (SIPs). Since 2014, each new SIP included an additional layer of literacy support for teachers and students. The formation of a schoolwide literacy plan, increased professional development around literacy topics, and the provision of reading interventions for struggling students were just a few of the supports that Principal Howard put into practice.

While the SIPs clearly focused on literacy, Principal Howard also worked to make her school culturally responsive to her diverse student body. Although Principal Howard did not explicitly articulate a vision of cultural responsiveness in the SIP initially, she clearly understood that for students to thrive academically they needed to see themselves reflected in the texts they read. She also wanted them to appreciate the cultures of others. Principal Howard stated,

We oftentimes try to get culturally sensitive books when we’re building our classroom libraries. We also look to pull other resources from . . . whatever experiences people have. So, it’s not just our culture that we want, the African American culture, . . . to expose students to. We want to expose them to all cultures. So, we do try to get culturally sensitive books and make sure our media center is stocked with those type of opportunities as well. (J. Howard, personal communication, October 31, 2020)

Principal Howard knew that for these resources to be effective, she also had to provide her staff with professional development on cultural responsiveness. Thus, she utilized school and district professional development to educate her teaching staff. Teachers and support staff received instruction on teaching within the literacy block, intervention strategies for struggling learners, and culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) across the curriculum. After instruction, school and district leaders monitored and supported the teaching staff via learning walks (Crum, 2008; Houck & Novak, 2017; International Literacy Association [ILA], 2019). This non-evaluative professional development cycle (Houck & Novak, 2017) enabled teachers to create culturally responsive classrooms.

Having grown up in the Pinecrest community, Principal Howard used her deep knowledge and understanding of the community to form partnerships that supported her literacy initiatives. She used this knowledge to build connections between Pinecrest and the community so that her students’ various identities were honored and represented within the school. For example, Principal Howard responded to the school’s growing Latinx population by establishing a Spanish cultural and linguistic focus in the school. In addition, she strengthened the school-community connection through community celebrations, literary events, parent workshops, and cultural festivals.

Despite all of this work, reading proficiency scores were greatly impacted by the state school closures in March 2020 due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. For 7 months, the school provided students with synchronous and asynchronous e-learning assignments. During this time, the school district established COVID protocols, created signage, and updated school ventilation for a safe return to the school building. The state suspended all assessments for Spring 2020 but resumed testing during the 2020 to 2021 school year. The statewide reading assessment for 2020 to 2021 indicated that 31% of the third-grade students at Pinecrest Elementary performed at or above grade level.

Moreover, a few new and veteran teachers did not share Principal Howard’s cultural values or strong connections to the community. Of the new teachers, one was particularly vocal about her feelings toward the students and community of Pinecrest Academy. Ms. Jennifer Crumbly came to Pinecrest via a Reduction in Force from another school system. Because Ms. Crumbly was a certified reading specialist, Principal Howard placed her on the third-grade team. During team collaborative planning, Ms. Crumbly would often make remarks disparaging the students and their families. She assumed that all Pinecrest parents received public assistance and the children resided in one-parent households. She stated that the students were “lazy and apathetic” because they did not turn in their work during the pandemic. When reminded to make weekly parent contacts to check on the students’ progress, she expressed her fear of communicating with students’ parents due to previous bad experiences. When consulted on the purchase of culturally responsive literature across the curriculum, Ms. Crumbly balked. She saw no benefit in using culturally responsive literature over other reading programs that had proven results in promoting reading proficiency.

After hearing these comments during meeting after meeting, Danika Bacon, the third-grade team lead, knew that she needed to address Ms. Crumbly. Ms. Bacon began her career at Pinecrest 2 years after Principal Howard was appointed to the school. The “Howard-way” was the only educational model that she knew. She saw the gains that the third-grade students had made prior to the pandemic as a result of the team’s efforts and implementation of the SIP. Her high expectations for her students are reflected in her words, “We don’t know what [the students] can do until we challenge them to do it . . . so, I set the bar high and then I support them to reach the bar” (D. Bacon, personal communication, October 29, 2020). Ms. Bacon was accustomed to taking an all-hands-on-deck approach, doing whatever was necessary to help students be successful. Thus, Ms. Crumbly’s comments unsettled her. Ms. Bacon spoke to Ms. Crumbly in private but decided to talk to Principal Howard when the comments and dismissive behavior continued. In Ms. Bacon’s view, if Pinecrest was to return reading proficiency to prepandemic levels, team cohesiveness had to be addressed.

In addition to this internal dissonance, external policy changes threatened Principal Howard’s plans. With the governor’s encouragement, the State Board of Education had prohibited the teaching of critical race theory (CRT) in the state’s public educational institutions. Sophie Middleton, the school Media Specialist, expressed her concerns to Principal Howard. Although CRT is not taught at the K–12 level, Ms. Middleton worried about the announcement. How would this prohibition impact her book purchases for the diverse students of Pinecrest? Because Ms. Middleton received training in CRP, she understood the importance of inclusion and representation in children’s literature. Principal Howard assured Ms. Middleton that she would consult district leadership on the impact of the state prohibition on local schools.

The political concern over CRT and culturally responsive literature also emboldened fifth-grade teacher Mr. Martin Livingston, who had a long-standing debate with Principal Howard and the literacy team on the merits of a classical education over a culturally responsive education. The classical, or liberal arts, education model is

[a] philosophy rooted in the history and culture of the Western world, classical education includes both a classical approach, encouraging deep and thoughtful reading and writing within a moral frame, and classical content, such as the study of Ancient Greek and Latin literature, history, art and languages. (Weeks, 2018, para. 6)

Though classical liberal education has had many interpretations, the consensus view of the purpose of classical education is to develop “free human beings who know how to use their minds and are able to think for themselves” (Hadzigeorgiou, 2019, p. 3). Having received a classical education in his youth, Mr. Livingston argued that the classical model would better strengthen students’ vocabulary and ability to communicate, promote critical thinking, and expose students to experiences beyond the familiar. He reasoned that these marketable skills are prerequisites for the highest paying jobs, which would broaden students’ opportunities and help break cycles of generational poverty.

In addition to considering the impact of learning disruptions due to COVID-19, Principal Howard must consider how to address rising internal and external dissonance when planning the next SIP for Pinecrest Academy.

Case Analysis/Teaching Notes

Planning for Success: The SIP

SIPs have been widely used in the United States as well as in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Portugal among other countries (Escobar, 2019). Many of these nations mandate SIPs with the goal of improving low-performing schools (Van Gronigen & Meyers, 2017). While requirements for the content of SIP vary by states (in the United States) and national mandates, generally speaking, SIPs are documents that capture the goals, strategies, and actions schools will engage in to improve students’ educational experiences (Escobar, 2019; Strunk et al., 2016). In the best circumstances, these plans develop from a reflective process that includes a needs assessment, which is an analysis of the school’s challenges and their root causes (Corbett & Redding, 2017). Following this process, strategies to address these challenges are ideally developed from research-based best practices (Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2020).

Specifically, the research suggests that effective SIPs begin with a clear focus on what the plan is seeking to achieve (Isernhagen, 2012). Next, there needs to be an honest and thorough needs assessment conducted that includes both quantitative and qualitative measures. Once the baseline has been established, clear, measurable, and actionable goals need to be developed. The research suggests that focusing on a few priorities is far more effective than setting many different goals, which often leads to burnout and nothing getting done (Kaufman et al., 2012). Importantly, stakeholders must be given the opportunity to be involved in this planning process as it creates buy-in and ownership of the plan (Fernandez, 2011).

While the evidence on the effectiveness of SIPs is mixed, several studies have noted that well-constructed and executed SIPs can improve students’ academic achievement (Fernandez, 2011; Strunk et al., 2016). Indeed, the selection of a specific need is a significant factor in the school’s ability to improve academic achievement (Marzano et al., 2005a). By identifying and addressing the specific need, the school can focus on the “right work,” which Marzano et al. (2005a) define as the school improvement efforts needed to maintain or improve student achievement. Once the priority has been ascertained, a determinant of the SIP’s success is the principal’s ability to establish and maintain a definitive focus (Hollenbeck et al., 2014). By keeping a focus at the forefront, the principal can avoid being sidetracked by initiatives not aligned with the priority (Day et al., 2016; Hollenbeck & Rieckhoff, 2014). In a study that specifically examined policy and practice for literacy leadership, Murphy (2004) observed that effective schools prioritize literacy in their SIPs. The SIP document provides a description of the improvement priorities and the monitoring process, which assesses progress toward goal attainment (Fernandez, 2011). Traditionally, the principal leads a team in the SIP effort at the school level.

Principal Howard’s yearly SIPs reflected the use of a continuous improvement model, in which she prioritized a literacy focus. Principal Howard consistently and continuously communicated a literacy vision for the school (Plaatjies, 2019); monitored the vision qualitatively and quantitatively (Crum, 2008; Houck & Novak, 2017); built consensus and collaborative partnerships among faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders (Riley & Webster, 2016; Santamaria & Santamaria, 2016); and celebrated the literacy growth of students. Undergirding these practices were a foundation of trust (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000), the ability to build capacity to support student learning in staff and families (Brazer & Bauer, 2013), and the provision of organizational structures that provided the time, spaces, and personnel required to realize the literacy vision (Danielson, 2002; Ford & Youngs, 2018).

The Principal as Literacy Leader

The role of the school principal has evolved greatly over the years, from managerial leadership to instructional leadership (Hallinger, 2005), transformational leadership (Leithwood & Sun, 2012), and social justice leadership or culturally responsive school leadership (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; Khalifa et al., 2016), just to name a few. When the instructional leadership and culturally responsive school leadership frameworks are integrated for literacy instruction, the resultant is principal literacy leadership (Thompson, 2021).

Principal literacy leaders execute their knowledge and practices of literacy and cultural responsiveness in three areas (a) content knowledge, (b) the literacy culture, and (c) the collaborative culture. First, principal literacy leaders are self-reflective, aware of their personal biases related to their literacy and cultural backgrounds and the context in which they lead (Khalifa, 2018; Khalifa et al., 2016). With an understanding of the school and community context, they work to reduce oppressive and exclusionary practices in themselves and their staff. Principal literacy leaders use their understanding of the context to form a plan that unites their knowledge of literacy content knowledge and instruction (Dowell et al., 2012; Hollenbeck & Rieckhoff, 2014; ILA, 2019; Murphy, 2004; Overholt & Szabocsik, 2013; Taylor, 2004) with their knowledge of culturally responsive and inclusive practices to reduce the reading achievement gap of marginalized students (Horsford et al., 2011; Keehne et al., 2018; Khalifa, 2018; Khalifa et al., 2016; Riley & Webster, 2016; Santamaria & Santamaria, 2016).

Second, principal literacy leaders promote an inclusive literacy culture through the communication of a vision and mission of quality literacy instruction for all students. Through on-going professional development, they increase the literacy capacity of teachers, staff, and themselves. For the principal, this increased capacity includes the ability to supervise and assess literacy instruction and provide directive feedback to teachers and support professionals. In addition to providing for instructional needs of school faculty and staff, principal literacy leaders provide a print-rich (digital and print) learning environment that celebrates cultural diversity (Khalifa, 2018; Khalifa et al., 2016; Plaatjies, 2019).

Finally, principal literacy leaders foster a collaborative culture with and among educators and stakeholders. They provide a welcoming environment and promote collective responsibility in the literacy achievement of all students (Compton-Lilly & Delbridge, 2018; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; ILA, 2019; Jones et al., 2019; Khalifa, 2018; Riley & Webster, 2016; Salisbury & McGregor, 2005). The inclusion of families and the community in the literacy instruction of the students establishes collaborative partnerships, opens two-way lines of communication, fosters trust between the school and its stakeholders, and offers additional support systems for students (Brumley, 2010; Compton-Lilly & Delbridge, 2018; Crum, 2008; Houck & Novak, 2017; ILA, 2019; Khalifa, 2018; Khalifa et al., 2016; Plaatjies, 2019; Riley & Webster, 2016; Taylor, 2004). Thus, principal literacy leaders use their knowledge of literacy and their school context to formulate a plan for high-quality literacy instruction that supports learning for all students (Cuticelli et al., 2016; Dowell et al., 2012; Hollenbeck & Rieckhoff, 2014; Khalifa, 2018; Khalifa et al., 2016; Overholt & Szabocsik, 2013; Teale et al., 2018).

Principal Howard’s practices distinguished her as a principal literacy leader. In addition to providing effective instructional literacy leadership (Dowell et al., 2012), Principal Howard provided a culturally responsive school culture. Cultural responsiveness has been shown to promote educational equity and reduce opportunity gaps for diverse students (Horsford et al., 2011; Keehne et al., 2018; Khalifa, 2018; Khalifa et al., 2016; Riley & Webster, 2016; Santamaria & Santamaria, 2016). For years into her principalship, Principal Howard had no formal training in culturally responsive education or cultural competency. As an educator of color and long-time community member, she used her personal experience and her knowledge of the community to meet the needs of the culturally and linguistically diverse students at Pinecrest. Since 2014, Principal Howard has increased the cultural and literacy competence of herself and her instructional staff through school, district, and state professional development. The training topics included CRP, guided reading, vocabulary instruction, literacy interventions for struggling students, writing across the curriculum, and student self-monitoring strategies. In response to her training, Principal Howard increased the use of culturally sensitive practices in literacy instruction. She provided culturally relevant books and resources for classroom libraries and the media center; fostered a culturally and linguistically inclusive school culture, which celebrated students’ diversity through books and cultural festivals; and challenged the deficit-thinking of teachers by requiring academic rigor across the curriculum (Khalifa, 2018; Khalifa et al., 2016; Santamaria & Santamaria, 2016). In addition, Principal Howard engaged in collaborative partnerships with teachers, parents, and community stakeholders (Compton-Lilly & Delbridge, 2018; Riley & Webster, 2016). Family and community members acted as guest readers, tutors, and co-hosts of celebrations of literacy growth (Thompson, 2021).

While Principal Howard knows the importance of cultural competence, she works in one of the many states that has recently passed a CRT ban. Although K–12 schools do not teach CRT, many of these pieces of legislation enact sweeping bans on discussing what is often termed as “divisive concepts.” These bills attempt to limit or outright prohibit classroom discussions of racism, sexism, and issues of systemic inequality. While few of these bills explicitly target culturally responsive education, limited discussion of these issues has had a chilling effect on the conversations of educators in Principal Howard’s state.

Conclusion

Principal Joanna Howard led Pinecrest Academy to a 58.1% reading proficiency among third-grade students in 2019. Due to forced school closings in March 2020, learning disruptions impacted the students’ continued progress. The Spring 2021 state reading assessment indicated that third-grade reading proficiency declined from 58.1% in 2019 to 31%. In addition, internal and external pressures threatened to derail some of the effective literacy practices instituted over the past several years. Moving forward, Principal Howard must continue to balance her strong focus on supporting students’ literacy growth with her deep knowledge of her community and the impact of these factors when formulating future SIPs. Focus on the “right work” will help schools like Pinecrest Academy continue to grow and thrive (Marzano et al., 2005a, p. 76).

Questions to Consider

The site-specific approach is one of many SIP frameworks (Marzano et al., 2005a). Marzano et al. (2005a) divide the site-specific approach into three categories: “school-level factors, teacher-level factors, and student-level factors” (p. 82). Each category is accompanied by achievable areas of change, called “factors” (Marzano et al., 2005a, p. 82). The 11 factors within the broad categories are accompanied by action steps that help school leaders focus on the “right work” (Marzano et al., 2005a, p. 76). Use the supplemental document, “A Model for Identifying the ‘Right Work’” (Marzano et al., 2005b) to complete the following activity:

Divide the class into groups of 2 or 3. You are now the literacy team of Pinecrest Academy. Your goal is to help Principal Howard get reading proficiency back to prepandemic levels.

Within the case, identify an area of focus. Is your focus at the school-level, teacher-level, or student-level?

Within the defined level, choose one factor from column one of “A Model for Identifying the ‘Right Work.’”

Then, choose one action step from column two.

Develop a plan to implement and monitor the action step.

• What is your desired outcome?

• How will you know when you have attained that outcome?

• Determine a timeframe to implement your plan.

• How will the plan be monitored?

• If your desired outcome was not attained within the timeframe, how will you revise or rewrite your plan?

• If your desired school-level outcome was attained within the timeframe, how will you make this action step a process within the school?

• If your desired teacher- or student-level outcome was attained within the timeframe, how will you make this action step a process within the classroom?

Compare and contrast your SIP with those of the other teams.

Like many other crises, COVID-19 required school leaders to pivot quickly to support their students’ learning needs. How could you as a school leader change your SIPs to respond to crises (e.g., natural disasters and school shootings) that require students to be out of school for an extended period of time?

Should Principal Howard address those who disagree with her culturally responsive literacy focus? Why or why not? If so, how?

How does the state’s prohibition of CRT impact Principal Howard’s literacy leadership?

What could Principal Howard do to continue her CRP focus within her state’s current policies and political climate?

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jel-10.1177_15554589221119406 – Supplemental material for Under Pressure: Leadership for Literacy and Cultural Responsiveness

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jel-10.1177_15554589221119406 for Under Pressure: Leadership for Literacy and Cultural Responsiveness by Lisa D. Thompson and Kristina Brezicha in Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership

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.

ORCID iD

Lisa D. Thompson

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Lisa D. Thompson is a former K-12 administrator with 22 years of secondary education experience. Her research centers on literacy leadership and educational equity. Dr. Thompson currently serves as a part-time instructor in the Educational Policy Studies department of Georgia State University.

Kristina Brezicha is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership at Georgia State University. Her research centers on the relationship between education and democracy. She has presented her work at numerous conferences and published in many academic journals such as Educational Administration Quarterly, Equity & Excellence in Education, and the Journal of School Leadership.

References

Brazer

S. D.

Bauer

S. C.

(2013). Preparing instructional leaders: A model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(4), 645–684. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13478977

Brumley

(2010). Situating literacy leadership within the ISLLC standards for education administration. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 4(3), 207–218.

Compton-Lilly

Delbridge

(2018). What can parents tell us about poverty and literacy learning? Listening to parents over time. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(5), 531–539. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.923

Corbett

Redding

(2017). Using needs assessments for school and district improvement: A tactical guide. U.S. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/10/needsassessment-final.pdf

Crum

(2008). The need for renewed literacy leadership efforts at the secondary level. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 12(15), 1–7. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ940602.pdf

Cuticelli

Collier-Meek

Coyne

(2016). Increasing the quality of tier 1 reading instruction: Using performance feedback to increase opportunities to respond during implementation of a core reading program. Psychology in the Schools, 53(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21884

Danielson

(2002). Chapter 5. School organization. In Danielson

(Ed.), Enhancing school achievement: A framework for school improvement (pp. 43–49). ASCD. http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/102109/chapters/School-Organization.aspx

Day

Sammons

(2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616863

DeMatthews

Mawhinney

(2014). Social justice leadership and inclusion: Exploring challenges in an urban district struggling to address inequities. Education Administration Quarterly, 50(5), 844–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13514440

10.

Dowell

Bickmore

Hoewing

(2012). A framework for defining literacy leadership. Journal of Reading Education, 37(2), 7–15.

11.

Escobar

I. H. G.

(2019). School improvement plans, a tool to improve the quality of education. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(1), 440–450. https://www.prosoc.eu

12.

Fernandez

K. E.

(2011). Evaluating school improvement plans and their affect on academic performance. Educational Policy, 25(2), 338–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904809351693

13.

Fiester

(2013). Early warning confirmed: A research update on third-grade reading. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. https://www.aecf.org/resources/early-warning-confirmed/

14.

Ford

T. G.

Youngs

P. A.

(2018). Creating organizational structures to facilitate collegial interaction among teachers: Evidence from a high-performing urban Midwestern US district. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(3), 424–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216682501

15.

Hadzigeorgiou

(2019). Reclaiming liberal education. Education Science, 9(264), 1–17.

16.

Hallinger

(2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500244793

17.

Hernandez

D. J.

(2011). Double Jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518818.pdf

18.

Hollenbeck

A. F.

Rieckhoff

B. S.

(2014). Leadership for literacy: A glimpse into the principal’s office. Journal of Reading Education, 40(1), 29–35.

19.

Horsford

S. D.

Grosland

Gunn

K. M.

(2011). Pedagogy of the personal and professional: Toward a framework for culturally relevant leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 582–606.

20.

Houck

Novak

(2017, October). Leading the way in literacy. The Learning Professional, 38(5), 30–34.

21.

International Literacy Association. (2019). Principals as literacy leaders [Literacy leadership brief].

22.

Isernhagen

J. C.

(2012). A portrait of administrator, teacher, and parent perceptions of Title I school improvement plans. The Journal of At-Risk Issues, 17(1), 1–7.

23.

Jones

B. E.

Bustamante

R. M.

Gray

Brooks

B. R.

(2019). Exploring cultural responsiveness among European American principals in rural schools with high-performing African American readers. Journal of School Leadership, 29(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684619832155

24.

Kaufman

T. E.

Grimm

E. D.

Miller

A. E.

(2012). Collaborative school improvement: Eight practices for district-school partnerships to transform teaching and learning. Harvard Education Press.

25.

Keehne

C. N. K.

Sarsona

M. W.

Kawakami

A. J.

K. H.

(2018). Culturally responsive instruction and literacy learning. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(2), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X18767226

26.

Khalifa

(2018). Culturally responsive school leadership. Harvard Education Press.

27.

Khalifa

M. A.

Gooden

M. A.

Davis

J. E.

(2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383

28.

Leithwood

Sun

(2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11436268

29.

Marzano

R. J.

Waters

McNulty

B. A.

(2005a). A model for identifying the “right work.” http://arlingtonplc.pbworks.com/f/ModelIdentifyRightWork.pdf

30.

Marzano

R. J.

Waters

McNulty

B. A.

(2005b). School leadership that Works: From research to results. ASCD.

31.

Murphy

(2004). Leadership for literacy: A framework for policy and practice. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(1), 65–96.

32.

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2020). School improvement: Strategy selection. https://oese.ed.gov/resources/oese-technical-assistance-centers/state-support-network/resources/school-improvement-strategy-selection/

33.

Overholt

Szabocsik

(2013). Leadership content knowledge for literacy: Connecting literacy teachers and their principals. The Clearing House, 86, 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2012.742034

34.

Plaatjies

(2019). Investigating principal capacity in literacy instructional leadership at selected primary schools. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 10(3), 136–160.

35.

Riley

Webster

(2016). Principals as Literacy Leaders with Indigenous Communities (PALLIC) building relationships: One school’s quest to raise Indigenous learners’ literacy. Teaching Education, 27(2), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2015.1049261

36.

Salisbury

McGregor

(2005). Principals of inclusive schools. On point. National Institute for Urban School Improvement. https://rcoe.learning.powerschool.com/mmccabe/mtssnetwork/cms_file/show/66557504.pdf?t=1499288351

37.

Santamaria

L. J.

Santamaria

A. P.

(2016). Toward culturally sustaining leadership: Innovation beyond school improvement promoting equity in diverse contexts. Education Sciences, 6(4), Article 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6040033

38.

Strunk

K. O.

Marsh

J. A.

Bush-Mecenas

S. C.

Duque

M. R.

(2016). The best laid plans: An examination of school plan quality and implementation in a school improvement initiative. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 259–309.

39.

Taylor

R. T.

(2004). Using literacy leadership to improve the achievement of struggling students. Middle School Journal, 36(1), 26–31.

40.

Teale

W. H.

Whittingham

C. E.

Hoffman

E. B.

(2018). Early literacy research, 2006-2015: A decade of measured progress. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 20(2), 169–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798418754939

41.

Thompson

(2021). A principal as literacy leader: Promoting literacy outcomes for third-grade students of color (MS #1263) [Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University]. Educational Policy Studies Dissertations. https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholarworks.gsu.edu%2Feps_diss%2F235&data=04%7C01%7Clthompson23%40student.gsu.edu%7Cb1fe0f95b5d04b6e731f08d91193cbc4%7C704d822c358a47849a1649e20b75f941%7C0%7C0%7C637560148742977520%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=j%2FVWu4642wqHeuOKey0mqhNKDzuVrd1XbbNo2ZxT85s%3D&reserved=0

42.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

W. K.

(2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547–593.

43.

U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Improving basic programs operated by local educational agencies (Title I, Part A). https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html

44.

Van Gronigen

B. A.

Meyers

C. V

. (2017). Topics and trends in short-cycle planning: Are principals leading school turnaround efforts identifying the right priorities? Planning and Changing, 48(1–2), 26–42.

45.

Weeks

(2018, June 19). How a classics education prepares students for a modern world. Edsurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-06-19-how-a-classics-education-prepares-students-for-a-modern-world

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB