Leading school-wide improvement in low-performing schools facing conditions of accountability

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to advance a framework that identifies three key domains of work and a set of more nuanced considerations and actions within each domain for school leaders seeking to improve school-wide student learning in low-performing schools facing conditions of accountability. Design/methodology/approach – Review of literature. Findings – Drawing from the work of Robinson et al. (2008), the authors identify and discuss a set of nuanced considerations and actions for school leaders seeking to improve school-wide student learning in low-performing schools facing conditions of accountability. These considerations and actions fall into three broad domains of leader work: first, goal setting and planning for goal achievement; second, promoting and participating in teacher learning; and third, planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and curriculum. Practical implications – This paper generates implications for school leaders, and school leader developers, school districts, and state departments’ of education. The authors detail two key implications for school districts and/or state departments’ of education as they seek to offer guidance and support to low-performing schools facing conditions of accountability. It also generates a testable framework that can be drawn upon to examine school improvement and the work of school leaders in low-performing schools facing conditions of accountability. Originality/value – The analysis reveals unique challenges and considerations situated within each of the three domains of leader work found by Robinson et al. (2008) to have moderate to strong effects on student outcomes. These issues motivate an assortment of more nuanced leader actions and considerations in each of the three domains of leader work of consequence to student learning. The analysis provides an important accounting of an assortment of nuanced actions and considerations likely to be necessary if leaders are to support the improvement of student learning in these uniquely challenged settings.

Mo’ Data, Mo’ Problems: Making Sense of Racial Discipline Disparities in a Large Diversifying Suburban High School

“…Third, leadership efforts to improve discipline absent organizational learning that aims to disrupt racism and racial biases will allow discriminatory discipline cultures to persist. Fourth, addressing discriminatory discipline is an important step in establishing organizational conditions that make instructional leadership for student learning more likely to take root (Cosner & Jones, 2016; Day et al, 2016).…”

“…Research on leadership practices that directly influence student outcomes makes it clear that effective instructional leadership requires approaches that also attend to organizational culture and climate (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Negative organizational conditions and toxic climates, if left unaddressed, diminish the effectiveness of instructional leadership (Cosner & Jones, 2016; Day et al, 2016). Examples of these conditions include ineffective or underdeveloped data-use cultures (Sutherland, 2004), low capacities to handle racial conflict or tension (Cooper, 2009; DiAngelo, 2011), and discriminatory discipline cultures (Diamond & Lewis, 2016).…”

Turnaround leaders’ shifting gears in chronos and kairos time

“…School turnaround is part of a broader accountability policy system. Most peer-reviewed research studies address one stage of accountability or turnaround policy at a time: when and how accountability systems identify schools as low performing (Hansen, 2012;Hochbein et al, 2013); when schools are developing school improvement plans (Fernandez, 2011;Mintrop and MacLellan, 2002;VanGronigen et al, 2017); leadership and schoolwide implementation of turnaround strategies (Ainscow et al, 2006;Cosner and Jones, 2016;Giles, 2007;Hamilton et al, 2007;Herman et al, 2008); and post hoc examinations of changes in performance (Brinson and Rhim, 2009;Dragoset et al, 2017;Hamilton et al, 2013). Longitudinal studies of turnaround that examine how schools sustain or lose ground on improvements are rare (exceptions include Bellei et al, 2016;Duke and Landahl, 2010;Earl et al, 2006;Finnigan and Gross, 2007).…”

“…Within the large base of research on the implementation of school improvement and turnaround is a focus on school leadership. Several studies have explored how school leaders make sense of the range of issues they face as they embark on mandated school turnaround efforts and the ways that they may (or may not) be strategically attempting to influence individual and collective engagement with change (Cosner and Jones, 2016;Duke and Salmonowicz, 2010;Finnigan, 2012;Zayim and Kondakci, 2014). Leaders' perceptions and strategies are complicated when leaders are new to their schools and settings, which is often the case when leaders are placed in low-performing schools specifically for turnaround (Duke and Salmonowicz, 2010;Kowal and Hassel, 2011).…”

The Leadership Challenge: Preparing and Developing Catholic School Principals

“…Another meta-analysis exploring the relationship between leadership and student outcomes identified three leadership domains that had moderate to strong effects on student outcomes (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Cosner and Jones (2016) described the leadership domains found to be effective in improving low-performing schools: (a) Setting organization goals and monitoring goal attainment using school-wide data and a cycles of inquiry process for continuous improvement; (b) Promoting teacher learning by building professional development systems that grow teachers' effective practice knowledge and skills; and (c) Serving directly as instructional leader by coordinating and evaluating teaching and curriculum.…”