Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Chair for Sheri L. Miller-Doctoral/PhD Dissertation Defense PPT

7/28/2019 Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Chair for Sheri L. Miller-Doctoral/PhD Dissertation Defense PPT.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dr-william-allan-kritsonis-phd-dissertation-chair-for-sheri-l-miller-doctoralphd 1/102

The Impact of Atypical Principal

Preparation Programs

on School Accountability and StudentAchievement in High-Poverty Schools

A Dissertation Defense

by

Sheri L. Miller-Williams

September 22, 2011

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

Dissertation Chair



Committee Members

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

Dissertation Chair

Donald R. Collins, PhD

Carl Gardiner, EdD

Clement E. Glenn, PhDSolomon Osho, PhD



The U.S. Education Dilemma

―Although the U.S. has some of the best public schools in

the world, it also has far too many weaker schools than

those found in other advanced countries. Most of these are

segregated schools which cannot get and hold highly

qualified teachers and administrators, do not offer good

preparation for college, and often fail to graduate even half

of their students‖.

Orf ield and Lee (2007)



A Review of the Literature



The Average Minority School

• According to Orfield and Lee (2007), on average, segregated minorityschools are inferior in terms of the quality of their teachers, the character of the curriculum, the level of competition, average test scores, andgraduation rates.

– Many of these segregated black and Latino schools have now beensanctioned for not meeting the requirements of No Child Left Behindand segregated high poverty schools account for most of the ―dropoutfactories‖ at the center of the nation’s dropout crisis. (pp. 4-5)

• This does not mean that desegregation solves all problems or that it alwaysworks, or that segregated schools do not perform well in rarecircumstances (Orfield & Lee, 2007).



Dropout Factories

According to Orfield (2009):

– Schools in the U.S. are more segregated today than they have been in morethan four decades.

– Millions of non-white students are locked into ―dropout factory‖ high schools,where huge percentages do not graduate, and few are well prepared for collegeor a future in the U.S. economy. (p. 26)

– Orfield and Lee (2005) suggest that poverty has long been one of the central

problems facing segregated schools. Segregation tends to be multidimensional.

– Typically students face double segregation by race/ethnicity and by poverty.These schools differ in teacher quality, course offerings, level of competition,stability of enrollment, reputations, graduation rates and many other dimensions. (p.3)



No Child Left Behind: Gauging Growth

In a recent study entitled, ―Gauging Grow th: How to Ju dge No

Chi ld Left Behind (2007), Fuller et al reveal that:

• Most states and the federal government have adopted policiesthat have the effect of punishing schools and school staffs for unequal results in re-segregated schools, which tend to haveconcentrations of impoverished low-achieving students alongwith inexperienced and sometimes unqualified teachers.

• The punishment and the narrowing of the curriculum thataccompanies excessive test pressure have not been effectiveand there is evidence that it has made qualified teachers evenmore eager to leave these schools. (pp. 268-277)



Segregated Minority Schools

• A 2001 study entitled, Schoo l Segregation on the Rise Despi te Grow ing Diversi ty Am ong Schoo l-Aged

Chi ldren supported the premise that despite our nation’s

growing diversity, our schools have become re-segregatedwhich directly contributes to a growing quality gap betweenschools attended by white students and those serving alarge population of minority students.



Segregated Minority Schools

The study revealed that as of 2001:

• Seventy percent of the nation’s black students attend

predominantly minority schools (minority enrollment of

over 50%), up significantly from the low point of 62.9%in 1980.

• More than a third of the nation’s black students

(36.5%) attend schools with a minority enrollment of 90-100%. Although the South remains more integratedthan it was before the civil rights revolution, it ismoving backward at an accelerating rate. (p. 18)



Demographics of Poor Students in Texas

and Harris County

• A review of the 2010 Demog raphic s o f Poor Chi ldren

Report revealed that the landscape of Texas familiesincluded a total of 3,472,355 families having 6,607,575

school-aged children. Of this number of school-agedchildren, 23% percent lived below the Federal Poverty Levelcompared to a national level of 19 %.

• Also, 48% of students in Texas, or 45% in Harris Countywere living in low-income families based on a 2009 studyentitled, Demog raphic s of Low Income Chi ldren.

(National Center for Children in Poverty, 2010)



Demographics of Poor Students in Texas

and Harris County

• Poverty, coupled with other identifiable labels, categories,classifications, and punitive measures of exclusionsuperimposed upon minority students have resulted in a

cycle of missed opportunities and generations of undereducated adult citizens in the U.S., Texas, andHouston (Harris County).

• The identifiers include: the economically disadvantagedstudent, the at-risk student, alternative educationprograms, the Limited English Proficient (LEP) student,Special Education, and the high school drop-out.



Key Factors Relative to Educating High-Poverty

Minority Students

• To broaden the context of this study, an understanding of key factorsrelative to the educational landscape of high-poverty minority schoolsare important to consider.

• These factors serve as direct links to underperformance in minorityschools and often serve as obstructions to a principal’s ability to re-shape high-poverty schools. They include:

– the identification of economically disadvantaged and at-risk students; – alternative education and exclusionary programs;

– the Limited English Proficient (LEP) student;

– the Special Education student; and

– the dropout student.



The Economically Disadvantaged

Student

• While 23% of all school-aged children living in Texas were classifiedas living below the poverty level in 2010, there are even morechildren classified as economically disadvantaged.

• According to the Texas Education Agency, in 2009-2010 there were512,473 economically disadvantaged students in Harris County,comprising 63.2% of the student population.

• Of the districts represented in this study, Aldine ISD and HoustonISD had 85% and 81% economically disadvantaged percentagesrespectively.

(Texas Education Agency, 2009).



The At-Risk Student

• Nationally, about 9% or approximately 1.2 million U.S. students leave highschool without obtaining a diploma every year (U.S. Department of Education, 2009).

• In 2009, Texas schools identified 2,285,954 or 48.3% of its total studentpopulation as being at-risk. Harris County identified 424,595 students asat-risk, equating to 53.9% of the general population (Texas Education

Agency, 2009).

• While all ethnic groups were included in the data reporting at-risk

numbers, it was reported in 2010 that 47.8% of all African Americanstudents in Texas schools were considered to be at-risk, and 67.3% of Hispanic students were considered at-risk.

• Of the greater Houston region, two districts included in this studyrepresented the highest and lowest at-risk populations reported in Harris

County. Aldine ISD had the highest at-risk population reporting 70.1% andHumble had the lowest reporting 31.8% (Texas Education Agency, 2009).



Alternative Education: An Overrepresentation

of Minority Placement

• In a 2007 study entitled, “The Overrepresentat ion of Afr ic an

Am erican Students in Exclus ionary Discipl ine: The Role of School

Policy” the author’s stated:

The overrepresentation of ethnic minority students, particularly African American males, in the exclusionary disciplineconsequences of suspension and expulsion has beenconsistently documented during the past three decades.

Children of poverty and those with academic problems are alsooverrepresented in such discipline consequences. Sadly, adirect link between these exclusionary discipline consequencesand entrance to prison has been documented and termed theschool-to-prison pipeline for these most vulnerable students.

(p.536)





• During the 2007-2008 school year 103,727 Texas public schoolstudents were transferred from regular instructional settings to adisciplinary alternative setting (Texas Education Agency, 2009).

• A review of the same data in 2008-2009, revealed that a largemajority or 68.3% of all Alternative Education Program Placementswere discretionary, and were not a direct result of violation of statecode (Texas Education Agency, 2009).

• Alternative education programs are often used as ―dumping grounds‖

and ―warehouses‖ for difficult students creating ―second-classcitizens‖ in the education community.





• In Texas, alternative education programs have a drop-outrate that is five times that of mainstream educationprograms and a recidivism rate that approaches 30

percent of all discretionary referrals.(Texas Appleseed, 2007)

• This fact is significant because while African Americansare disciplined at a rate proportionate to their

representation in the population for mandatory referrals,they are disproportionately represented for offenses thatare deemed ―discretionary.‖

(Texas Appleseed, 2010)



The Limited English Proficient (LEP)

Student

• According to state data from the 2010-2011 school year, slightlymore than 50 percent of Texas' 4.9 million public school studentswere classified as Hispanic (Texas Education Agency, 2010).

• During the 2008-2009 school year, the percentage of students in thegreater Houston identified as Limited English Proficient (LEP) was20.2%. An additional 19.1% were identified as being enrolled inbilingual or English as a Second Language (ESL) programs (TexasEducation Agency, 2009).

• In Texas, the number of Latino dropouts will be nearly three timesgreater than the number of dropouts for any other ethnicity by 2012(Education Equality Project, 2011).



The Limited English Proficient (LEP)

Student

• The percentage of students classified as Limited English Proficient (LEP)has a profound effect on the student and his or her transition into

American schools.

• Many of these students struggle to master academic content andmastery of subject matter can be challenging. In many ways, academicachievement as measured by the state assessment is not a truedepiction of the skills and abilities of these students since language oftenbecomes a barrier to the demonstration of mastery of learning.

• Schools with high LEP populations have high demands to not onlyensure that students are receiving the required support around languagebarriers, but also necessary interventions and remedial instruction as

identified by classroom performance.



Special Education and the Minority Student

• Poverty has long been noted as a cause of overrepresentation of minoritygroups in special education.

• Minority children with disabilities who live in urban and high-povertyenvironments are believed to be at alarmingly high risks for educationalfailure and poor outcomes because of inappropriate identifications andplacement services.

• A 2002 National Research Council report assessed the number of students in special education according to race. The study revealed clear disparities in the special education categories that carry the greateststigma including mental retardation, emotional disturbance and, to alesser degree, learning disabilities (Donovan and Cross, 2002).




• The Twenty-Second Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2000) documents theextent and seriousness of the problem:

– African-American youth, ages 6 through 21, account for 14.8 percent of thegeneral population. Yet, they account for 20.2 percent of the special educationpopulation.

– In 10 of the 13 disability categories, the percentage of African-Americanstudents equals or exceeds the resident population percentage.

– The representation of African-American students in the mental retardation anddevelopmental delay categories is more than twice their national populationestimates.




• There are overwhelming statistics indicating an overrepresentation of students of color who have been identified to receive special educationservices.

• A 2010 Texas Appleseed report revealed a disproportionate share of minority and special education students being expelled from Texas publicschools for non-criminal, non-violent offenses.

• During the 2009-2010 school year, 64, 696 students received specialeducation services in Harris County. An analysis of ethnic groupdistribution revealed that of this number, 10.7% of those students were

African American, and 7.7% were Latino (Academic Excellence Indicator System, n.d.).



Graduation and Dropout Rates

• In the 2010 Children at Risk Report, Growing Up in

Houston: Assessing the Qual i ty of Li fe of Our Chi ldren

Report, it was reported that Texas ranks last in the nation on

the percentage of adults with the high school diplomas; withonly 79.6% of Texans having a high school diploma.

• In Texas, a single cohort of dropouts has been estimated to

result in a loss of up to $9.6 billion for the state (Taylor, et.al,2009).



The Call for TransformationalLeadership



The Impact of Principal Leadership

• The school leader has become the central ingredient to schoolimprovement. Hess and Kelly (2007), revealed that school principals arethe front-line managers, the small business executives, the team leaders

charged with leading their faculty to new levels of effectiveness.

• The critical mass of research literature supports the concept that effectiveleadership is significant to the successful creation of a well balanced andhealthy organization (Bruffee, 1999; Bolman & Deal, 1997; Furman, 2003;

Schein, 2000; Yukl, 2006).



The Call for Transformational Leadership

According to Bass & Avolio (2005):

• Transformational leaders motivate and inspire in three ways:

– (1) by raising followers' levels of consciousness about the importanceand value of designated outcomes and about ways of reaching them;

– (2) by getting followers to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of

the team, organization, or the larger body; and

– (3) by raising followers' need levels to the higher-order needs, such asself-actualization, or by expanding their portfolio of needs.



Rationale for the Study




A recent four-year study by Arthur Levine, president of Teachers College Columbia

University, raised the stakes in this debate by harshly assessing the quality of

educational administration programs.

– Based on a survey of practicing principals and education school deans,chairs, faculty, and alumni, as well as case studies of 25 school leadershipprograms, Levine concluded that "the majority of educational administrationprograms range from inadequate to appalling, even at some of the country'sleading universities.‖

– The study found that the typical course of studies required of principalcandidates was largely disconnected from the realities of school management.

The Chronic le of Higher Educat ion, Arth ur Levine, 2005




– Nearly two-thirds of principals felt that typical graduate leadership programs"are out of touch" with today's school realities.

– By reputation, principal-preparation programs are not highly effective.

– 69 percent of principals and 80 percent of superintendents believed thattypical leadership programs "are out of touch with the realities of what it takesto run today's school district.

– Over 85 percent of both groups believed that overhauling preparationprograms would help improve leaders.

Schools Can’t Wait: Accelerating the Redesign of University Principal Preparation Programs

(SREB, 2006, p. 18),




• Texas principal turnover is on the rise.

• From 1995 –98, 47.3% of all principals left their schools or the field.

• Turnover was highest at the high school level, with 58.6% of principals leaving.

• From 2004 –07, principal turnover at all levels increased nearly 5% (to 52. 2%). Again, high school principals were most likely to leave their jobs (60.7%).

Implications from the UCEA/The Revolving Door of the

Principalship. March 2008




• Highly skilled school leaders are not born — nor are they fully forged inthe instructional setting of the school classroom. Neither do they emergefully prepared to lead from traditional graduate programs in schooladministration.

• Most likely, effective new principals who have been rigorously preparedand deliberately mentored in well-designed programs that immerse themin real-world leadership experiences will be the most successful.

Southern Regional Educat ional Board, 2007



The Emergence of Atypical PrincipalPreparation Programs



The Emergence of Atypical Principal Preparation Programs

A few things stand out about the ways new providers are

educating school administrators through atypical types of principal

preparation programming:

• These programs tend to give more emphasis to on-the-job preparationthan university-based programs do.

• They seem to favor mentoring over book learning.

• Their formal curricula seem to be more pragmatic, geared to the specific

knowledge and skills required by school principals at different career stages.

• The programs appear to be as concerned with supporting practicingadministrators as they are with preparing them for the job.

Lev ine (2005)

S h l A t bilit d th



School Accountability and the

Landscape of Principal Leadership

• The onslaught of high stakes testing, accountability, andpublic pressure to meet these high standards

necessitates the need for a different type of principal,despite training programs that continue to prepareprincipals for schools of yesterday.



Significance of the Study



Significance of the Study

• The researcher believes that through this study a strongand positive impact will be made on the quality of principals in the greater Houston area and larger body of

K-12 education.

• The study will bring forth recommendations aroundprincipal development and how training and preparation

of school leaders can impact achievement outcomes for students, and thus impact urban educational reform as awhole.



Theoretical Framework




• The theoretical foundation for this study was largely basedon the need for a new model of leadership developmentwhich will accommodate the ever changing complexion of today’s most challenging schools.

• This study was primarily driven by TransformationalLeadership Theory to support the notion of school reform

through the actions of the principal as school leader. The twotheorists most associated with its modern incarnation in

America are Bass and Burns.




Increased Accountability

Organizational Effectiveness

Need for Effective Leadership

Leader as Change Agent

Development of School Culture

Improvement in AccountabilityRatings and Student Achievement

Results

Transformational Leadership

Leadership Descriptors

Causes change in individuals and social systems.

Creates valuable and positive change in the followers with the end goal of developing followers into leaders.

Enhances the motivation, morale and performance of his followers through avariety of mechanisms.

The leader transforms and motivates followers through his or her idealizedinfluence (referred to as charisma), intellectual stimulation and individualconsideration).

In addition, the leader encourages followers to come up with new and unique

ways to challenge the status quo and to alter the environment to support being successful.



Purpose of the Study




The purpose of this quantitative causal-comparative study was

to investigate the differences between the impact of atypical

and traditional principal preparation on school accountability

and student achievement in the greater Houston area

high-poverty schools.




The study included an analysis of school accountability

ratings and student achievement results at a select groupof high-poverty schools to compare overall school and

student performance of a comparison group of traditionally

trained principals versus atypically trained principals.




• In this study, the researcher sought to identify differences that existbetween the type of principal preparation and to analyze quantitativedata to measure such differences.

• For the purposes of this research study, the researcher sought tocompare the means (sets of scores) from two independent or differentgroups.

• The comparison groups consisted of those who have participated inatypical or traditional principal preparation programs.



Research Questions & NullHypotheses



Research Questions

Research and information gained from a synthesis of related literature

helped to formulate research questions to guide this study. The

researcher attempted to find answers to the following research

questions:

1. Are there differences in school accountability in high-poverty schools inthe greater Houston area where principal training and preparationprograms differ (atypical vs. traditional)?

2. Are there differences in student achievement in high-poverty schools inthe greater Houston area where principal training and preparationprograms differ (atypical vs. traditional)?



Research Hypotheses

In order to answer the research questions, the researcher developed the

following null hypotheses:

(H01): There will be no statistically significant difference in school accountabilityratings of high-poverty schools in the greater Houston area having principals who

went through atypical principal preparation and those high-poverty schools with

principals receiving traditional principal preparation.

(H02): There will be no statistically significant difference in student achievementoutcomes of high-poverty schools in the greater Houston area having

principals who went through atypical principal preparation and those high-poverty

schools with principals receiving traditional principal preparation.



Variables



Variables

• There was one independent variable with two levels:

– X1= atypical principal preparation, and

– X2= traditional principal preparation.

• For each research question, the researcher had one dependent variable:

– School Accountability Ratings (Exemplary, Recognized, Acceptable,and Unacceptable); and

– Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) studentachievement scores in mathematics and reading.



Subjects of the Study



Subjects of the Study

• The approximate number of schools matched to the principals in thegreater Houston area in the quantitative data set was 100.

• The number of students housed in the schools matched to the principalsin the quantitative data set was approximately 70,000 (100 schools withapproximately 700 students enrolled = 70,000).



Target Population

• Five districts in the greater Houston area participated in the study. Thesedistricts included:

• Houston ISD,

• Aldine ISD,

• Alief ISD,

• Cy-Fair ISD; and

• Humble ISD.

• All elementary, middle and high schools within these five districts wereincluded as part of the target population.

• The selected districts were all located in Harris County, had at least 30,000students, and at least 30% of its students classified as economicallydisadvantaged.



Sampling Procedures &Instrumentation



Sampling Procedures

For this study, the researcher employed purposive sampling techniques toidentify the population (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2009).

• A two-fold sampling strategy was employed:

– Snowbal l sampl ing allows the researcher to identify, cases of interestfrom people who know people who might fit the profile of participants. Thissampling technique was utilized in the identification of potential participantsfor the study by type of principal preparation.

– Criter ion samp l ing allows the researcher to establish and pick all casesthat meet a specific criteria. This method of sampling is very strong in qualityassurance.



Controlling for Bias During the Sampling Process

• To control for sampling bias in this study, the researcher:

– Mailed questionnaires to all 556 schools in the five targeted school districts as follows:• Humble ISD (44 schools)• Aldine ISD (73 schools)

• Alief ISD (45 schools)• Cy-Fair ISD (80 schools)• Houston ISD (298 schools)

– Assessed whether the results from the sample would remain the same once criterionsampling was applied (i.e. grade level, ethnicity, gender, years of experience, years asan administrator, economically disadvantaged, etc).

– Eliminated procedural bias by not pressuring participants to complete the questionnaire.

– The sample was selected based on specific criteria only after 278 questionnaires werereturned.



Instrumentation

• The Texas Education Agency’s AEIS report and TAKS scores for 2008-2009and 2009-2010 were used to measure the impact of principal leadership onschool accountability ratings and student achievement results for atypicallytrained principals versus traditionally trained principals.

• To compare school accountability ratings, the AEIS report was accessed andincluded two academic years of rankings classified as: Exemplary (E),Recognized (R), Acceptable (A) or Unacceptable (U) for each principal/schoolincluded in the study.

• Student achievement results were measured by the percentage of growth inmathematics and reading for two academic years (2008-2009 and 2009-2010)for each principal/school included in the study.



Research Design



Research Design

The following steps were taken as part of the research design:

• Step 1: The researcher administered the School Leadership Survey to establish a pool of 556 principals/schools for the study. Of the surveys mailed, 278 were returned. Theresearcher assigned a number to surveys as they were returned, and entered alldemographic information into an Excel spreadsheet based on the assigned number.

• Step 2: The researcher identified and selected participating principals/schools based onsurvey data, and employed the criterion sampling approach to cross-reference survey datawith the Texas Education Agency’s AEIS data report to identify schools that met theestablished criteria. Schools meeting the criteria were highlighted on the Excel spreadsheetand identified as meeting the criteria for the study.

• Step 3: The researcher created final Excel database to include 100 schools from fivetargeted districts, ensuring that the sample included 50 traditionally trained and 50 atypicallytrained principals.

• Step 4: The researcher accessed and retrieved 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 extant AEISreports from the Texas Education Agency website. For each school year, accessed thereading, mathematics and school accountability rating for each school. Entered thisinformation into the Excel spreadsheet.



Instrumentation

• A School Leadership Demographic Survey was created by the researcher toanalyze the target population and narrow the sample based on identified criteria.

• The survey was comprised of nine sections:

– school name;

– grade level; – economically disadvantaged percentage;

– years of experience as a building principal;

– total years as principal of the current school;

– total years of administrative experience;

– ethnicity;

– gender; and – type of principal training.

The purpose of the survey was to narrow the total population down to a

sample size based on the criteria identified for the study.

School Leadership Demographic Survey



School Leadership Demographic Survey

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF ATYPICAL PRINCIPAL PREPARATION PROGRAMS ON SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY AND

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOLS

THE SCHOOL LEADERSHIP DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY (APPENDIX 1)

Section I: School Demographics School Name __________________________________

Enrollment __________________________________

Grade Level K-5 5-6 7-8 9-12

Years of Principal Experience 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 or more

Economically Disadvantaged % __________________________________

Section II: Principal Demographics

Ethnicity M F

Gender W AA H O

Years of Admin Experience 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 20+

Note: Administrative experience in any supervisory position not defined as the principalship.

Section III: Principal Preparation

Note: Please select the type of principal development program you participated in defined by the descriptions below.

__________ Traditional Principal Preparation (Completion of Master’s Degree and principal certification attained prior to assuming

principalship.

__________ Atypical Principal Preparation (Completion of Master’s Degree, principal certification and an extended training program

which includes field residency or clinical internship with a mentor principal or coaching from a master principal.



Research Design

• A quantitative causal-comparative design was used to determine the cause for or theconsequences of differences between participants in the study (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009).

• A basic causal-comparative design involved selecting two or more groups that differ on aparticular variable of interest and comparing them on another variable (Fraenkel & Wallen,

2009).

• The value of using this type of design is the ability for the researcher to identify possiblecauses of observed variations in behavior patterns (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009).

• Utilizing this methodology, the researcher was able to investigate the effects of theindependent variable after it has been implemented or had already occurred (Fraenkel &

Wallen, 2009).

• Descriptive statistics were used to compile demographic data on all participatingprincipals/schools included in the study. The statistical analysis portion of the study reliedsolely on quantitative instruments.

R h D i



Research Design

Step 5: Disaggregated the data by differences in reading, mathematics and school accountability ratings for each school.

Step 6: The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 13.0) was utilized to analyze the data.Frequencies and percentages were calculated and represented graphically. The Independent Samples

T-Test was used to measure differences in the comparison groups.

Step 7: The researcher constructed frequency polygons and then calculated the mean and standarddeviation of each group if the variable was quantitative.

Step 8: Generalizations regarding the study were made to the cohort of public schools to determine the effect

that principal training has a direct impact on school accountability ratings and student achievement results.

2008-2009 2009-2010

Reading Reading

Mathematics Mathematics

School Accountability

Ratings

School Accountability

Ratings

Traditionally Trained Principals

Atypically Trained Principals



Data Analysis

Table 1:Frequency Distribution by Type of



Principal Preparation

Principals Preparation Number Percent

Atypical 50 50.0

Traditional 50 50.0

Total (N) 100 100.0

Table 2: Frequency Distribution by Gender and Type



of Preparation

Type of Preparation

Atypical (50) Traditional (50) Total

Gender N % N % N %

Male 17 17.0 19 19.0 36 36.0

Female 33 33.0 31 31.0 64 64.0

Total 50 50.0 50 50.0 100 100

Table 3: Frequency Distribution by Ethnicity and



Type of Preparation

Type of

Preparation


Ethnicity N % N % N %

White

American

29 29.0 32 32.0 61 61.0

African

American

15 15.0 11 11.0 26 26.0

Hispanic

American 6 6.0 7 7.0 13 13.0

Total 50 50.0 50 50.0 100 100

Table 4: Frequency Distribution by Years of

E i C



Experience on Campus

Type of Preparation

Yrs of

Experience

On Campus


N % N % N %

1 to 3 9 9.0 7 7.0 16 16.0

4 to 6 21 21.0 21 21.0 42 42.0

7 to 9 10 10.0 16 16.0 26 26.0

10 + years 10 10.0 6 6.0 16 16.0

Total 50 50.0 50 50.0 100 100

Table 5: Frequency Distribution by Years of

E perience as an Administrator



Experience as an Administrator

Years of

Experience

as an

Administrator

Atypical

(50)

Traditional

(50)

Total

N % N % N %

1 to 5 2 2.0 4 4.0 6 6.0

6 to 10 20 20.0 26 26.0 46 46.0

11 to 15 17 17.0 16 16.0 33 33.0

16 to 20 7 7.0 3 3.0 10 10.0

21 + years 4 4.0 1 1.0 5 5.0

Total 50 50.0 50 50.0 100 100

Table 6: Frequency Distribution by Grade Levels

d T f P ti



and Type of Preparation

Grade Level

Type of Preparation


N % N % N %

K-5 21 21.0 16 16.0 37 37.0

5-6 2 2.0 7 7.0 9 9.0

7-8 15 15.0 14 14.0 29 29.0

9-12 12 12.0 13 13.0 24 24.0

Total (N) 50 50.0 50 50.0 100 100

T bl 7 F Di t ib ti b S h l Di t i t



Table 7: Frequency Distribution by School District

School District Number Percent

Aldine 20 20.0%

Alief 20 20.0%

Humble 20 20.0%

HISD 20 20.0%

Cy-Fair ISD 20 20.0%

Total (N) 100 100.0%



Research Hypotheses 1

H01: There will be no statistically significant

difference in school accountability ratings of high poverty schools in the greater Houston

area having principals who went through

atypical principal preparation and those high

poverty schools with principals receiving

traditional principals’ preparation.

Table 8: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the School

Accountability Ratings of High Poverty Schools with Atypical and



Accountability Ratings of High- Poverty Schools with Atypical and

Traditional Principals (08-09)

Statistics Atypical

(n=50)

Traditional

(n=50)

Mean 2.98 2.54

SD 0.82 0.93

SE .11 0.13

Mean Difference .44

df 98

t

p

2.51

.014*

*Significant at the .05 level

Table 9: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the School

Accountability Ratings of High- Poverty Schools with Atypical



Accountability Ratings of High- Poverty Schools with Atypical

and Traditional Principals (09-10)

Statistics Atypical

(n=50)

Traditional

(n=50)

Mean 3.22 3.14

SD 0.62 0.67

SE 0.01 0.01

Mean Difference .08

df 98

tp

.0621

.536



Research Hypotheses 2

H02: There will be no statistically significant

differences in student achievement outcomes of high poverty schools in the greater Houston

area having principals who went through a

typical principal preparation and those high

poverty schools with principals receiving

traditional principal preparation.

Table 10: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the TAKS TotalAchievement Scores of Students in High-Poverty Schools with



Achievement Scores of Students in High Poverty Schools with

Atypical and Traditional Principals (08-09)

Statistics Atypical

(n=50)

Traditional

(n=50)

Mean 74.3 72.4

SD 00.12 00.11

SE 00.02 00.02

Mean Difference .02

df 98

tp

.813

.418

Table 13: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the TAKS TotalAchievement Scores of Students in High-Poverty Schools with Atypical



g y yp


Statistics Atypical

(n=50)

Traditional

(n=50)

Mean 81.8 75.2

SD 00.09 00.11

SE 00.01 .01

Mean Difference .06

df 98

tp

3.34.001***

***Significant at the .001 level

Table 11: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the Reading TAKSAchievement Scores of Students in High-Poverty Schools with Atypical and



Traditional Principals (08-09)

Statistics Atypical

(n=50)

Traditional

(n=50)

Mean 89.0 83.0

SD 00.001 00.11

SE 00.001 00.02

Mean Difference 0.06

df 0.98

tp

3.410.001***

***Significant at the .001 level

Table 14: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the Reading TAKSAchievement Scores of Students in High-Poverty Schools with Atypical




Statistics Atypical

(n=50)

Traditional

(n=50)

Mean 91.2 86.6

SD 00.01 00.10

SE 00.001 00.01


df 98

tp

2.760 .007**

**Significant at the .01 level

Table 12: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the Math TAKSAchievement Scores of Students in High-Poverty Schools with Atypical




Statistics Atypical

(n=50)

Traditional

(n=50)

Mean 83.1 79.2

SD 00.10 00.11

SE 00.01 00.01


df 98

tp

1.910.060

Table 15: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the Math TAKSAchievement Scores of Students in High-Poverty Schools with Atypical




Statistics Atypical

(n=50)

Traditional

(n=50)

Mean 88.5 84.8

SD 00.01 00.11

SE 00.001 00.001

Mean Difference .04

df 98

t 1.998

p .049*

*Significant at the .05 level



Summary of Findings,Discussion, Conclusions, and

Recommendations

Summary of Statistical Findings



Summary of Statistical Findings

Variable Measured

Statistically

Significant

Not Statistically

Significant

Level of

Significance

Accountability Rating (08-09)

X .014*

Accountability Rating (09-10) X

TAKS All (08-09) X

TAKS All (09-10) X .001***

TAKS Reading (08-09) X .001***TAKS Reading(09-10) X .007**

TAKS Math (08-09) X

TAKS Math (09-10) X .049*

Discussion



Discussion

The most interesting finding of the study was the evidence that principal preparation

had an influence on the overall school performance and academic achievement of

students attending high-poverty schools.

Kenneth Leithwood and his colleagues said in their landmark 2004 report, “How Leadership Influences Student Learning”:

There are virtually no documented instances of troubled schools being turned

around in the absence of intervention by talented leaders. While other factors

within the school also contribute to such turnarounds, leadership is the catalyst.If leadership is in fact the critical bridge to having school improvement pay off

for children, we need to understand how to better prepare school administrators to

lead the increasingly complex institution we call school, so that all children can

learn to high standards. (p. 5)

Discussion



Discussion

• A notable finding from the study pertained to the influence of principals’

preparation programs on the accountability ratings of high povertyschools during the 08-09 and 09-10 academic school years.

• Specifically the preparation programs of principals had influence on theaccountability ratings of high poverty schools during one of two schoolyears measured in the study.

• These findings correspond with the research of the Wallace Foundation(2007), Davis (2003), Forman (2003), Schein (2000), and Hallinger andHeck (1999). These researchers found a significant relationship betweenoverall school effectiveness and principal preparation.

Discussion



Discussion

• The findings regarding the influence of the variable principals’preparation programs on academic achievement of students wereconsistent with those of Fielder (2003), Leithwood (2004), SouthernRegional Education Board (2007), and Institution for Educations

Leadership (2010).

– The findings from research conducted by the above researchersindicated that principals’ preparation was a significant predictor of student academic success.

– The results of the study did show a significant difference in Readingfor both years tested, and in Mathematics in one out of the two yearstested.

The Lack of Influence of the Texas Performance

M



Measure

• The TPM allowed districts to count as passing certain students whofailed the TAKS test but were projected to pass within three years.With implementation of the TPM, the number of schools ranked―exemplary‖ skyrocketed in 2010, with 239 schools receiving thehighest ―exemplary‖ rating - more than three times the number that

would have received that rating without TPM.

• For the purposes of this study, all schools accountability ratings andstudent achievement scores for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010school year included TPM as a factor.

• A notable finding in this study was despite the implementation of TPM and its influence on school accountability ratings and studentachievement scores for Texas schools during this period, schools ledby atypically trained principals still outperformed traditionally trainedprincipals overwhelmingly.

Conclusions



• The theoretical framework for the study was grounded by the notionthat transformational leadership is the vehicle by which a principalleads sustainable change at high-poverty campuses.

• The basis for the research hypotheses was driven by the expectedinfluence atypical principal preparation had on school accountabilityratings and student achievement in high-poverty schools.

• The literature clearly supported the underpinnings that atypicalprincipal preparation programs share common design elements thattraditional principal preparation programs are missing.

Conclusions



• The results of this study clearly support Levine’s (2005) work around

the need to reframe principal preparation with the atypically trainedprincipal outperforming the traditionally trained principal on five of theeight variables measured in this research study.

• Accordingly, this study brings the atypical principal preparationmodality to the forefront as potentially having found the potentialanswer to preparing principals to lead a new and different type of school; one that meets the needs of students who come with a

multitude of challenges, and the opportunity to change the trajectoryof the achievement gap across schools in the U. S. that havestruggle for generations.

Conclusions



• Irrespective of the modality of preparation, the role of the principal inleading improvement efforts at high poverty schools is undeniable.

• Regardless of the type of preparation received by principals’, particularlythose tested in this investigation, the fact that two modes of principalpreparation were presented, tested, and yielded vastly different results,symbolizes a need to ensure that more work is done beyond this study.

• Also, since most of the students attending the types of schools includedin this study are made up of minorities from low income households, thetype of training principals’ receive must take into account cultural

differences and how these differences impact the total pedagogicalenvironment.

Recommendations for the Field of Education



Recommendation One:

• A national committee should be formed to work on the redesign of principal preparation to create national guidelines around principal

preparation.

• This committee should include national researchers and organizationswhose work centers around principal preparation and effectiveness,university schools of education, atypical providers of principal

preparation, and school districts from across the nation.

• The committee’s work should be driven around how principalpreparation programs are grounded by the Interstate School LeadersLicensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for principals.




Recommendation Two

• A complete redesign of university principal preparation program shouldtake place to ensure that both traditional and atypical programs have

content and experiential alignment. These programs should move awayfrom basic theory to more real-world application through partnershipswith school districts around internship and mentorship in school settings.

Recommendation Three

• Public school administrators, especially those responsible for hiring anddeveloping principals should be cognizant of the preparation and trainingthese individuals undergo to enhance their leadership skills.




Recommendation Four

• Principal preparation programs should teach the coreleadership skills necessary to leading high-poverty schools,

but also prepare principals to lead improvements alongsidethe challenges facing students in poverty (i.e. EconomicallyDisadvantaged, At-Risk, Special Education, Limited EnglishProficient, Alternative Education, and the Drop-Out).

• Principals need to be well-versed in what challengesminority students bring, and how to deal with them.




Recommendation Five

• Principal preparation programs should include selection criteria toassess a candidate’s ability to lead transformative efforts on a schoolcampus.

• Assessment criteria built around Leithwood model of transformationalleadership should include the candidates ability to: – (1) build a school vision, – (2) establish school goals, – (3) provide intellectual stimulation to teachers staff, and students,

– (4) understand the need to offer individualized support to teachers andstudents, – (5) model best practices and important organizational values, – (6) demonstrate high performance expectations for all stakeholders, – (7) create a productive school culture, and – (8) develop structures to foster participation in school decisions.




Recommendation Six

• Principal preparation programs should include selection criteria toassess a candidate’s cultural proficiency in working with urban students.

– The Haberman Urban Questionnaire is a research-based instrument used bydistricts across the country to predict which candidates will succeed asschool principals serving diverse children and youth in urban poverty. Itanalyzes respondents' answers around thirteen dimensions of urban schooladministration.

– The items represent administrator behaviors and predispositions to act.These actions reflect an ideology regarding the respondents' beliefs aboutthe nature of effective schooling for diverse children and youth in urbanpoverty and the nature of school leadership necessary to lead such schools.




Recommendation Seven

• Public school administrators and other school district

officials should be aware of the social, cultural,economical and psychological factors which drive theleadership of principals, particularly those who will beemployed at high-poverty schools.

• An understanding of these factors will enable schooldistrict officials to take into account their influence in thedevelopment and implementation of programs to trainprincipals.




Recommendation Eight

• Public school administrators whose primary responsibility is todevelop effective, efficient, and quality preparation program for principals should be aware of the proper role of collaboration in

regards to the matching of principal and school to enhance the totaleffectiveness of the preparation program for principals.

Recommendation Nine

• Districts should provide ongoing professional development for

principals to ensure that they are well versed and supported to dealwith the demands of the work in high-poverty schools.

Recommendations for Further Study



• A follow-up study could be conducted to compare thegrowth patterns of atypically or traditionally trainedprincipals included in this study to compare growth in school

accountability ratings and student achievement rates inhigh-poverty schools for a longer period of time.

• A mixed-method study could be done to not only compare

school performance and achievement data by type of principal training, but the study could also include aqualitative instrument used to collect and measure theelements of principal preparation differences betweenatypical and traditional programs.




• A follow-up study could be done to measure the influence of other factors (i.e. At-Risk, Economically Disadvantaged, SPED, LEP,Drop-Out, Alternative Placement, teacher years of experience,teacher turnover, etc.) on the school accountability ratings andschool achievement results in high-poverty schools.

• A follow-up study could be conducted that would use a larger population of a similar demographics across the U.S . Such a study,if conducted, would provide more pertinent data on principalpreparation and its impact on school accountability and studentachievement on a much larger scale.

• A follow-up study could be conducted to compare schoolperformance of atypically and traditionally trained principals under the new STAAR assessment being introduced during the 2011-2012school year.




• A qualitative study could be conducted to compareprincipal effectiveness based on stakeholder perceptions in high-poverty schools around the eight

transformational indicators in Leithwood’s model.

• A study could be conducted to examine the impact of principal preparation has on school climate and teacher

attitudes. This study would measure how preparationspecifically impacts perceptions of stakeholdersregarding overall school climate as well as teacher perceptions of principal preparedness to impact overallschool climate.




• A study could be conducted to compare differences instudent achievement growth patterns based on various

atypical principal preparation programs based onnational norm-referenced assessments. This studywould explore a comparison of like programs and their national impact on student achievement.

• A study could be conducted to compare and contrast theelements of training content in both atypical andtraditional preparation programs for principals.

References



Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

Fuller, B., et. al. (2007) ―Gauging Growth: How to Judge No Child Left Behind?” Educational Researcher . 36.5. pp. 268-278. Sage Publications. Web.

Hess, F.M., & Kelly, A.P. (2007), Learning to lead : What gets taught in principal preparation programs. Teachers College Record , 109(1), 244-74.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. The Chronicle of Higher Education. pp. 11, 12, 22, 24, 29,51, and 52.

Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2007). Historic reversals: Accelerating resegregation, and the need for new

integration strategies. (A report of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles).UCLA. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/s/

Orfield, G. (2009). Reviving the goal of an integrated society: A 21st century challenge. Public Agenda Website. Retrieved fromhttp://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=higher_education&list6

References

http://news.yahoo.com/s/

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=higher_education&list6

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=higher_education&list6

http://news.yahoo.com/s/



Southern Regional Educational Board. (2006). In schools can’t wait: Accelerating the redesign of

university principal preparation program. Retrieved from http://www.sreb.org

University Council for Educational Administration. (2008). Implications from UCEA: The revolving door

of the principalship. Retrieved from

http://www.edb.utexas.edu/ucea/home/ucea/www/pdf/ImplicationsMar2008.pdf

http://www.sreb.org/



http://www.sreb.org/



Questions

Documents

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Chair for Sheri L. Miller-Doctoral/PhD Dissertation Defense PPT