National FORUM of Applied Educational Research Journal 27(1&2) 2014, Angela A. Brown & Reginald Leon Green - NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS ((Founded 1982), Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief - www.nationalforum.com

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL
VOLUME 27, NUMBERS 1 & 2, 2014

Practices Used by Nationally Blue Ribbon Award Winning
Principals to Improve Student Achievement in High-Poverty
Schools
Angela A. Brown, EdD
Principal
Shelby County Schools

Reginald Leon Green, EdD
Professor
University of Memphis

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify reform strategies used by leaders of Blue Ribbon
schools to successfully turnaround high-poverty, low-performing schools and to determine if the
use of the strategies altered the instructional and institutional behaviors of teachers. In addition,
the researchers sought to determine if the use of the strategies impacted students’ perceptions
about themselves and others. Data collected and analyzed revealed seven leadership strategies in
the literature on school transformation: (1) Leadership, (2) Collaboration, (3) Professional
Development, (4) School Organization, (5) Data Analysis, (6) Curriculum Alignment, and (7)
Student Intervention. The analysis further revealed that the school leaders perceived a noticeable
difference in teachers’ behavior and students tended to feel competent and cable of learning the
curriculum taught when these practices were executed.
Keywords: leadership strategies; instructional and institutional behavior of teachers;
student perception about self and others

The phenomenon of high-poverty, failing schools is a national problem that exists in
urban, rural, and suburban areas. Since 1964, studies of national policies and school reform
initiatives have raised questions relative to enhancing the achievement of students attending
these schools. Nevertheless, after five (5) decades of reform efforts including the Civil Rights
Act of 1964; The Effective Schools Movement of the 1970s and 80s; A Nation At Risk Report,
1983; Standards and Accountability Movement of the 1990s, and The No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB), 2001, high-poverty, underachieving schools remains and educational leaders continue
tosearchfor processes and procedures that can be used to enhance the academic achievement of
the students they serve.
Failing schools are most often located in urban and rural areas and are not evenly
distributed across states. Adding to the unequal distribution of these schools is the fact thatthey
2

ANGELA A. BROWN and REGINALD LEON GREEN
serve a disproportionate number of minority students, with an African-American
populationranging from 65% to 95%, (Malen & Rice, 2004; U.S. Department of Education,
2001b). Also, noteworthy, in failing elementary schools the number of immigrant groups and
other minorities is reaching 96%, (Hassel &Steiner, 2003).Moreover, children who attend these
schools are of greater risk of literacy failure because they come from poor families. Students
from poor families are more likely to face stress factors such as unemployment and marital
discord which can result in the lowing of children’s self-worth and an increase in other negative
effects that may lessen their level of low academic achievement (Snow, Barnes,Chandler,
Goodman, & Hemphill, 1991).
Children functioning under these circumstances face challenges that require schools to
provide an instructional program that will address the negative effects that influence the teaching
and learning process, (Ascher & Maguire, 2011).Considering that American education has
progressed through several reform movements, and over 40% of the nation’s youth continue to
attend underperforming schools, there is an urgent need to identify practices and processes that
are effective in high-poverty, low-performing schools.

Review of the Literature
In order to transform low-performing schools, we must first understand what
characterizes a school as failing or low-performing. The term “failing school”appears to be
relatively new, surfacing in the 1990s as a result of the accountability movement, (Duke, 2006).
There is little existing literature that describe specific characteristics of low-performing schools
or that examines how school decline (Corallo & McDonald, 2002). The existing literature does
not explain why some schools have tried multiple strategies to improve student achievement,
without rapid or clear success (Herman, 2008). Understanding how a school's academic
achievement begins to slip can thus provide important insights into the adjustments needed to
reverse the process (Duke, 2006).
What is most problematic is the fact that state educational leaders currently lack the
knowledge and resources to turn around failing schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2001b).
They are unsure about which parties are responsible for implementing the school’s turnaround
effort (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). For example, we know it’s misleading to simply
attribute school decline to "changing demographics," which usually serves as a politically correct
way of saying that a school has experienced an influx of poor, minority, and often non-Englishspeaking students, (Duke, 2006). Common conditions do, however, appear to be present in these
schools. These conditions include a correlation between community poverty and stress on the
organization of the school (Corallo & McDonald, 2002). This stress is evidenced by low
expectations for student achievement, high teacher absenteeism, and high rates of teacher
turnover (Corallo & McDonald, 2002).Consequently, factors attributing to school failure are both
internal and external to the schoolhouse.
External/Internal Factors
School failure stems from external and internal conditions (Green, 2010). In some
instances, the literature focuses on the negative impact that external conditions have on schools.
3

Communities associated with school failure may experience “Social deprivation” (Willmott,
1999, p. 10) and “associated problems” (U.S. Department of Education, 2001b, p. 4.). These
conditions lead to high levels of violence and disruption. This includes gang conflicts, drug
dealing, prostitution (Kozol, 1991), and other hostile factors (Ediger, 2004). Such "an
environment... destabilizes home life, undermines support, and creates despair" (Lashway, 2004,
p. 25) deterring the transformation process. Notwithstanding the reform efforts inside the
schoolhouse, these external factors impede transformation efforts.
Secondly, internal conditions can also cause school failure. Theinternal factors that
impact achievement can be placed into three categories: quality teaching, school climate, and
student conditions.
Quality teaching. Failing schools employ the least qualified teachers (Ediger, 2004)
even though such schools are in need of the most skilled ones (Mintrop & Trujillo, 2005).
Teachers assigned to failing schools are likely to lack expertise in literacy, math, or more
specialized subject areas (Mazzeo & Berman, 2003). In addition, teachers who teach in failing
schools are usually not trained to meet the needs of low-income children. Only a few colleges
and universities prepare teachers for this challenge(Kozol, 1991). This isespecially troubling
considering that new teachers are more likely to be assigned to low-performing schools(Ravitch,
2010).
School climate. Other stresses of teaching in a failing school may include "unsafe
climates, poor attendance, low achievement, rundown facilities, and scarcity of materials. These
factors make it difficult for such schools to attract and retain effective teachers qualified to teach
at high levels in core subject areas (Mazzeo & Berman, 2003). This type of school climate is
often highlighted by the media and such notoriety discourages teachers who are attempting to
maintain order and increase academic achievement (King & Lopez, 2008).
School success or failure in high-poverty, underperforming schools is often determined
by the leadership of a school (Duke, 2006). As such, ineffective leadership is reported as an
essential, internal cause of failure and is one of the most consistent features referenced when
speaking about the climate of underperforming schools (Meyers, 2007). Climate and leadership
may be the dynamics that are responsible for the drop in achievement when the school is not
conducive for learning,(Kozol, 1991).
Student conditions. Student outcomes are the third category that influences
transformational efforts. High-poverty, low-performing schools usually have poor student and
teacher attendance, low student achievement results, and the perpetuation of low graduation
rates, (Duke, 2006). In many instances, the majority of the students are failing and up to 75% of
them are eligible for free or reduced price lunches (Ediger, 2004).These factors and others make
it difficult for failing schools to attract and retain teachers qualified to teach at high-academic
performance levels in core subject areas, (Mazzeo & Berman, 2003).
As a result of the factors described in the above three categories, reform efforts designed
to address low-performing schools continue to occur.However, indifference to the number of
failing or underperforming schools that remains,some are being transformed into highperforming schools. When analyzing proven practices appearing in the literature, the following
4

factors appear most frequently: (1) Leadership, (2) Professional Development, (3) Student
Intervention, (4) Collaboration, (5) Curriculum Alignment, (6) Data Analysis, and (7)
Collaboration. Give that some high-poverty, underperforming schools are being transformed
using these seven practices, it is of great interest and benefit to determine the extent to which
they are being used by successful school leaders.

Purpose of Present Research
For over thirty years, there has been a call to end academically deficient schools. The
U.S. Department of Education has identified approximately 5,000 schools in the chronically
underperforming category, which amounts to approximately 5% of the schools in the
nation(Elementary and Secondary Education, 2010). Over half of such troubled schools are in
big cities, (U.S. Department of Education, 2010), and with the constant changes requested by the
various education reform movements, the number continues to grow.The need for educators to
intervene in these schools andidentify strategies that can be used to transform failure to success
is an idea whose time has come. This idea rests on the assumption that the fundamentals of
educational practices can be changed. Given that seven (7) practices continue to surface in the
literature as proven practices in the transformation process, the rationale for this study was to
explorethe practices used by leaders of Nationally Blue Ribbon Award Winning Schools of
Excellence to determine the extent, if any, to which they use (1) Leadership, (2) Professional
Development, (3) Student Intervention, (4) School Organization, (5) Curriculum Alignment, (6)
Data Analysis, and (7) Collaborationto enhance academic achievement in low performing
schools. In addition, the researchers were interested in determining if use of these strategies
altered teachers’ instructional and institutional behaviors and if use of the strategies impacted
students’ perception about self and others.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical foundation for this study was grounded in three theories of leadership as
defined by Green (2010), Spillane (2001), and Bass (1985). These theorists have diligently
analyzed the relationship between the school leader’s behavior, beliefs, values, and social
interactions and the academic achievement of the students they serve. The leadership practices of
these theorists are grounded in the belief that a leader’s beliefs, values, and behavior work
together to guide and direct practices and procedures that aid in the progression of school
improvement. Using appropriate, leader behavior, school leaders can transform low-performing
schools into high-performing schools.
In crafting a framework to guide this work, the primary theory used was that of Green
(2010), The Four Dimensions of Principal Leadership.This is a comprehensive theory that
informs principles supported by Distributive and Transformational leadership theories. Also, it
provides a description of the core principles embedded in theories throughout the literature as
well as those characterized by the seven reform strategies under study.

5

The Four Dimensions of Principal Leadership
According to theFourDimensions of Principal Leadership Theory developed by
Green(2010),in order to transform low-performing schools there must be a balance between the
style and behavior of the leader. Dimension I, addresses the belief that in order to be effective,
school leaders must have a keen understanding of self and others. The leader must understand
what he/she believes and values,as well as know where his/her strengths lie. This fundamental
understanding will determine their behaviors and decisions in the organization.
Dimension II speaks to understanding the complexity of organizational life, which
encompasses the structure of the daily operations, culture and climate of the school, and the
interaction of people in day-to-day relationships. He suggests that an understanding of the
intricacies of organizational functions will facilitate structures and systems as well as remove
barriers to progress.
Dimension III references the practice of building relationships inside and outside of the
school. For example, Green theorized that if relationships between principal/teacher,
teacher/teacher, teacher/student, and school/community are developed and nurtured, high student
achievement can be promoted. Such relationships encourage camaraderie, commitment, and
collaboration; essentials for school transformation.
Dimension IV emphasizes engaging in leadership best practices. This dimension
strategically illustrates a research-based, change initiative model that includes the use of data,
decision making strategies, and practices of conflict resolution. These are proven practices that
have been used to transform high-poverty, low-performing schools into high-performing schools.
Green (2010) suggests that each dimension builds on the other, and posits that leadership
effectiveness, which is necessary for school transformation, emerges when all four work together
simultaneously.

Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study:
1. To what extent, if any, do principals, conferred as National Blue Ribbon Award
recipients, use reform strategies found in the literature to turn around high- poverty, lowperforming schools?
2. How does the use of the reform strategies alter teachers’ instructional and institutional
behaviors?
3. How does the use of the strategies impact students’ perception about self and others?

Methodology
The study was conducted in various states containing schools that had been awarded the National
Blue Ribbon School of Excellence Award between the years of 2007-2010.Leaders of Nationally
Awarded Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence were selected because they had facilitated the
6

improvement efforts necessary to achieve this honor. The program honors public and private
elementary, middle and high schools whose students achieve at very high levels or have made
significant progress and helped close gaps in achievement, especially among disadvantage and
minority students. Therefore, a comparison of the practices used by leaders of these schools with
those frequently appearing in the literature would enhance the identification of proven practices
that can be used by school leaders to transform underperforming schools.
Population and Sample
The study focused on the strategies used by building principals who facilitated the
improvement efforts necessary to achieve the National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence
Award. A population of 304 Blue Ribbon principals was invited to participate in the study. Each
principal was contacted via the U.S. postal mailing system and those that volunteered to
participate in the study were sent a survey. The final selection of participants, 172was based on
the returned responses.
Instruments
The instrument used to gather the data was a 35 item survey of questions about leadership
strategies. The survey items were developed from three sources: a survey (Turnaround Schools
and the Leadership They Require)created and validated by Leithwood and
Strauss(2009);questions regarding teachers’ and students’ perceptions from a questionnaire
validated asThe Nurturing School Inventory (Green, 2004); and demographic information. The
survey instrument was divided into four major questioning categories: Part 1 - School
Turnaround Strategies, Part 2 - Changes in the Beliefs and Practices of the Teachers, Part 3 –
Changes in Student’s Perceptions of Self and Others, and Part 4 – School and Personal
Demographics.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data was collected using a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software
for interpretative results. A total of 172 participants responded to the questionnaire for a return
rate of 57%. The data was analyzed by conducting a Chi Square Test of Independence analysis to
determine the significance of the practices used by principals to reform schools and student
achievement results. The independent variable was leadership strategies practiced by school
leaders.
The data was also analyzed to identify the extent to which the practices frequently
appearing in the literature were used by school leaders of National Blue Ribbon schools to
transform high-poverty, underperforming schools. Also, an evaluation analysis was conducted to
provide a test of the theoretical approach to school transformation.

Findings

7

Of the 172 respondents, the highest response rate was from elementary school leaders.
Geographical returns rated higher from the Southern region of the country. The small town
category had the highest return rate at 41%, while the urban category had a 39% return rate.
Schools with the highest return rate tended to be schools with 600 students or more. Over sixty
percent (60%) of the respondents worked in schools where the percentage of free/reduced lunch
or low social economic status (SES), was 50% or greater, and students demographics varied from
fewer than 25% minority to over 75% minority. Additionally, the data revealed that 46% of the
respondents worked in school where fewer than 25% of the students were minorities. One
percent (1%) of the respondents did not indicate the region or the school size. Table 1 provides a
frequency distribution of the respondents’ demographic information based on institutional
characteristics such as: grade level configuration, U.S. region, locale, school size (student
population), percentage of students on free or reduced lunch, and percentage of minority
students.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics Pertinent to the Characteristics of Sampled Respondents’ Schools

Institutional Characteristic

f

%

Grade Levels
Elementary School
Middle School/Junior High School
Grades 7 - 12/Senior High School
Other Configurations (K -8, K -12, etc.)

59
44
35
35

34.1
25.4
20.2
20.2

U.S. Region
Northeast (New England, Middle Atlantic States)
Midwest (East/West North Central States)
South (South Atlantic, East /West South-Central States)
West (Mountain, Pacific States)
Region not provided

24
47
77
23
2

13.9
27.2
44.5
13.3
1.2

Locale
Urban
Suburban
Small Town/Rural

68
35
70

39.3
20.2
40.5

School Size
399 or fewer students
400 - 599 students
600 or more students
Size not provided

55
51
66
1

31.8
29.5
38.2
0.6

8


Percent Free/Reduced Lunch
29% or fewer
30% to 49%
50% to 79%
80% or greater

39
27
53
54

22.5
15.6
30.6
31.2

Percent Ethnic Minority
25% or fewer
26% to 50%
51% to 75%
More than 75%

79
19
15
60

45.7
11.0
8.7
34.7

The Use of Reform Strategies Found in the Literature
With regards to strategies frequently appearing in the literature(safety, collaboration,
attendance, discipline, involvement, resources, monitoring, alignment, professional development
for faculty, and professional development for administrators, the researches asked respondents to
indicate the extent to which they used each strategy. Using a Lickert-type scale, they reported the
ones that they used to the greatest extent, a great deal, quite a lot, moderate amount, a little, or
very little to turn around high-poverty, low-performing schools. The range of means was 1.0, to
5.0. A mean of 3.0 or above was identified as a significant strategy. The analysis of the responses
indicated that all ten strategies were used to a significant extent, in that all participants ranked all
strategies above the mean score of 3.0. The most notable strategy observed was “monitoring
students’ learning” because it ranked 5.0 yielding the highest mean score. The strategy with the
lowest mean score was professional development for administrators. Means and Standard
Deviations Observed for the Ten Items Concerning Restructuring Strategies (N=169) appear in
Table 2.
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations Observed for the Ten Items Concerning Restructuring
Strategies (N = 169)

M

SD

01. Making the school a safer place emotionally and physically.

4.46

1.20

02. Adjusting the school schedule to allow more time for teacher
collaboration.

4.23

1.30

Item

9


03. Creating policies and practices to improve student attendance.

3.95

1.33

04. Changing policies and procedures so teachers spend less time
on student discipline.

4.02

1.37

05. Increasing parental involvement in the school and in their
children’s learning.

4.15

1.12

06. Increasing resources (e.g., staff, subject experts, instructional
materials).

4.30

1.33

07. Monitoring students’ learning more closely and using results to
plan individual instruction.

5.00

1.05

08. Aligning instruction in the school with state/district
accountability tests.

4.52

1.24

09. Increasing the quality and focus of professional development
for teachers.

4.67

1.04

10. Increasing the quality and focus of professional development
for administrators.

3.91

1.36

The Use of Reform Strategies and Teacher Instructional and Institutional Behavior
To determine the use of reform strategies and teacher instructional and institutional
behavior participants were asked to report if the use of the reform strategies altered teachers’
instructional and institutional behaviors by replying to eleven items: (1) beliefs, (2) instructional
strategies, (3) collaboration, (4) analysis, (5) professional development, (6) environment, (7)
ask for help, (8) share responsibility, (9) interpret data, (10) high expectations for students, and
(11) high expectations for self. The participants indicated the observed changes in teachers’
beliefs and practices as they related to the turnaround efforts using the following rating scale: (6)
very great extent, (5) great extent, (4) moderate amount, (3) slight extent, (2)very slight extent,
or (1) no change seen. With a range of means of 1.0 to 5.0, a mean of 3.0 or above was identified
as a significant strategy.
An analysis of the data revealed no significant changes in the teachers’ belief that all
students can learn or that their instructional strategies were improved. However, of the eleven
items questioned, four items had higher than mean scores indicating that they were observed
more frequently. The data also revealed that the respondents observed that the teachers were
more involved in analyzing their students’ individual progress, setting higher expectations for
students, spending more time interpreting individual student test results, and setting higher
expectations for themselves. The responses of the participants to each of the questions and the
statistical analysis of those responses appear in Table 3.
10

Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations Observed for the Eleven Items Concerning the Effects of
Restructuring on Teachers (N = 170)

Item

M

SD

01. Teachers’ belief that all children can learn has increased.

4.39

0.96

02. Teachers’ repertoire of instructional strategies has expanded
and improved.

4.77

0.90

03. Teachers are collaborating more often with their colleagues
about instructional matters.

4.78

1.10

04. Teachers are more involved in analyzing their students’
individual progress.

4.98

0.99

05. Teachers are more often involved in meaningful professional
development

4.65

1.03

06. Teachers are more conscious of their contributions to a safe
and healthy school environment.

4.18

1.13

07. Teachers find it easier to ask for help with curriculum and
instructional challenges.

4.45

1.03

08. Teachers are sharing responsibility for all students in the
school.

4.56

0.98

09. Teachers are spending more time interpreting individual
student test results.

4.82

0.93

10. Teachers are setting higher expectations for their students.

4.93

0.86

11. Teachers are setting higher expectations for themselves.

4.81

0.86

The Impact of Reform Strategies on Student’s Perception of Self and Others
Regarding how the use of the reform strategies impacted students’ perception about self,
and others, respondents were asked to reply to eleven items (safety, listening, acceptance, caring,
choices, self-worth, own problems, feelings others, feelings self, competence, and own choice)
11

indicating the observed changes in students’ perceptions of self and others as they related to the
turnaround efforts. Respondents were asked to indicate whether the changes were used to a very
great extent, great extent, moderate amount, slight extent, very slight extent, or no change seen.
The range of means was from 1.0 to 5.0, a mean of 3.0 or above was identified as a significant
observed impact to the student’s perception.
The data analysis revealed that there were no significant differences in the students’
perceptions of self and others. Of the eleven items questioned, two items had higher mean scores
indicating that they were observed more frequently. The data revealed that the respondents
observed that students believe they are more competent and capable of learning and students are
willing to take ownership of their choices more frequently than the other items. Conversely, the
less observed item was students’ feelings about safety at the school. The responses of the
participants to each of the questions and the statistical analysis of those responses appear in
Table 4.
Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations Observed for the Eleven Items Concerning the Effects of
Restructuring on Students (N = 172)

Item

M

SD

01. Students feeling a stronger sense of safety at the school.

4.05

1.32

02. Students believing more strongly that their teachers listen to
their concerns.

4.13

1.08

03. Students believing more strongly they are accepted as a part of
the school.

4.34

1.16

04. Students developing a more caring feeling for other students.

4.36

1.03

05. Students being encouraged to make choices about their
education.

4.28

1.00

06. Students more often demonstrating a sense of self-worth.

4.30

1.02

07. Students being more willing to take ownership of their
problems.

4.33

1.05

08. Students being more aware of their feelings.

4.08

1.11

12


09. Students being more aware of the feelings of others.

4.13

0.95

10. Students believing more strongly that they are competent and
capable of learning the subjects taught to them.

4.56

1.04

11. Students being more willing to take ownership of the choices
they make.

4.43

0.99

Discussion
There is a consistent thread of evidence in the literature that identifies seven (7) strategies
that can be used to turn around low-performing schools in high-poverty areas or maintain high
academic standards in high-poverty schools, regardless of school demographics. The seven
strategies are: (1) Leadership, (2) Collaboration, (3) Professional Development, (4) School
Organization, (5) Data Analysis, (6) Student Interventions, and (7) Curriculum Alignment.
Though not collectively, these strategies have surfaced during several major educational reform
movements such as: Effective School Movement (1982), Accountability Movement (1991), and
Goals 2000 (1997). In our research, we raised questions regarding the use of these strategies to
determine the extent to which they were used by principals of Blue Ribbon Schools of
Excellence, who had transformed high-poverty, underperforming schools into high-performing
schools. We also sought to determine if the theoretical framework the Four Dimensions of
Principal Leadership was an appropriate theory to inform the transformation of schools. In both
the explored areas: the strategies used by principals of Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence and
the Four Dimensions of Principal Leadership framework, the response was positive.
Principals’ Use of Strategies Found In the Literature
According to the data results from the survey, leaders receiving the Blue Ribbon Schools
of Excellence award, deemed the seven practices, found in the literature, as important factors to
their schools’ success. They accede that leadership was the first contributing factor to their
schools’ success. The deliberate leadership practices, processes and procedures were perceived
by the leaders to influence the level of school transformation. These leaders monitored student
learning and used the results to plan individualized instruction.They reported that that
theleadership practice of monitoring students’ learning and using the results to plan
individualized instruction was the highest determinate factor of all the practices that led to school
transformation. This finding is consistent with studies in the literature that report a positive a
positive correlation between leadership practices, monitoring student learning and using results
to plan individual methods for improving student achievement (Leithwood & Strauss, 2009).
Closely following monitoring of learning as a determining factor, were the leadership
strategies related to providing differentiated professional development to the staff and aligning
the curriculum to the instructional needs of the students. Although professional development had
a major role in changing the behaviors and attitudes for the faculty, professional development
13

possible reason for this finding is that the leaders developed an understanding of self and others
and established priorities which suggested that they understood the importance of first addressing
the needs of teachers who are the first contact with students and teaching and learning.
Surprisingly, student attendance was reported as having the least effect on school
improvement. Such an observation may be due to the efforts placed on the other strategies that
directly influence students’ interests and desires to become a part of the school’s environment.
Such interest and desires on the part of students could reduce the need for the leaders to focus on
student attendance because students will want to come to school. Leithwood and Strauss (2008)
reported that leadership practices that address monitoring students’ progress affect other areas
such as attendance. Once an environment is created that motivates strong student performance,
the need to put special emphasis on student attendance is lessened (Wallace Foundation, 2012).
Teachers’ Instructional and Institutional Behaviors
The school leaders reported believing that there was a noticeable difference in teachers’
behavior when they used the leadership strategies identified as influential in the school’s
transformational process. One, considerable change in the practices of teachers was their
involvement with analyzing individual students’ data and setting higher expectations for all of
their students. Also, teachers were less likely to focus on school climate as a major factor for
school improvement. This finding is supported by the work of King and Lopez (2008). These
researchers reported that leadership practices can mandate a shift in the practices of teachers and
once teachers change their practices, their beliefs about students change. As teachers see students
breaking through academic barriers their beliefs change about the capabilities of students (King
& Lopez, 2008).
The Impact of Strategies on Students’ Perception about Self and Others
The observed effects of school transformational practices of the leaders, relative to
students’ perceptions, revealed minimum discrepancies in the findings. However, one major
observationwas that students tended to feel more competent and capable of learning the
curriculum when the school leaders demonstrated the practices outlined in the literature. Perhaps,
students felt more competent in their abilities because their teachers used data to make
instructional decisions that met their needs. When teachers are able to identify areas in which
students are struggling and implement strategies for individual improvement, students’ beliefs
about themselves change (Boudett & Steele, 2007). Overall, the practices of the school leader
and the observed behaviors of the teachers positively impacted the students’ beliefs about
themselves and others.
The Use of the Theoretical Framework to Inform Change
A close review of the data from this study confirms that Green’s (2010) theory, The Four
Dimensions of Principal Leadership and the use of the seven concepts outlined in this study are
aligned and can be used to inform a process of transforming high-poverty, underperforming
schools into high-performing schools. With regards to Dimension I, school leadersin the study
reported that their behaviors were a contributing factor that led to their in-depth knowledge about
14

teachers’ behavior and students’ perceptions. The leaders understood their roles and
responsibility and were able to establish the relationships necessary to facilitate change in the
school’s organizational structure. The leaders also reported feeling strongly about their ability to
communicate the magnitude of their practices relative to the school’s transformation.
Dimension II of the theory advocates that the school leaders must understand the
complexity of organizational life, which encompasses the structure, daily operations, culture and
climate of the school, and the interaction of people in their day-to-day relationships. To that end,
the school leaders structured the school day to encourage collaboration between teachers, student
attendance, parental involvement, and ensured a safe school. These relationships were nurtured
through collaboration, data analysis, and professional development. Thus, the principles of
Dimension III were validated, as Green (2010) theorized, if relationships between
principal/teacher, teacher/teacher, teacher/student, and school/community are nurtured through
collaboration, data analysis, and professional development, then school transformation is
possible.
Dimension IV emphasized the importance of engaging in leadership best practices to
transform a low-performing school. This dimension strategically illustrates a change initiative
model, decision making strategies, and conflict/resolution practices that are grounded in research
proven practices such as data analysis, aligning the curriculum, providing student interventions,
increasing resources and shared leadership, all of which, are leadership practices that can be used
to transform an underperforming school. This study also confirms that these four dimensions are
not specific to geographical location, grade configuration, or any other demographic feature, but
focus on the process of school improvement rather than only the accountability product.
Implications for School Transformation
While the analysis of the proven practices in this study may not vary much from other
studies, the results suggests that when transforming low-performing schools, change agents
should give consideration to the educational reform initiatives and the practices outlined.
Primarily, the practices of school leaders are a major contributing factor to transforming a
school. The leader must think innovatively, implement reform strategies, plan individualized
instruction, and monitor learning. Also, instead of implementing holistic professional
development activities, professional development activities must be individualized specifically
addressing the needs of the school and the individual or collective needs of teachers.
A forth consideration includes the use of purposeful data analysis from various sources
when making decisions related to student interventions, collaboration, and organizational
structures within the school. Finally, careful consideration related to leadership selections,
Leadership Role Theory, innovative techniques to incorporate the seven proven practices, and
incremental recognition to schools for small successes should be included in the new reform
initiatives. Once the school’s leader executes the listed practices, teachers and students
perceptions will change and the combined changes can turn around a high-poverty, lowperforming school.
First Hand Experience
One of the researchers of this study is a recipient of the National Blue Ribbon School of
15

Excellence Award and can personally attest that the exposed practices are effective in
transforming low-performing schools. In 2004, the researcher was appointed principal of an
elementary school that had been identified as a high-priority school, in a high-poverty area for
three consecutive years. With the faculty intact, a close analysis of the available and relevant
data was used to equip all stakeholders in the re-structuring the school’s organizational systems
to meet the needs of students. The deliberate work focused on the curriculum students needed to
learn, the professional development teachers needed in order to deliver effective instruction, and
the establishment of relationships that facilitated collaboration around academic achievement.
Within five years, the school was transformed from a high-priority school into a nationally
recognized Blue Ribbon School of Excellence for achieving improved academic gains for five
consecutive years. The practices found in this study were key contributors in the transformation
of the school.
Clearly the leadership practices identified can be used to transform an underperforming
school into a high-performing school. An effect of using the leadership practices is a change in
the beliefs and behaviors of teachers. There is a need to ensure that teachers are involved in
analyzing students’ progress. They also must attend professional development activities based on
their individual needs, and understand how to plan lessons that are aligned to a rigorous
curriculum. Much like the changes in teachers’ behaviors, these researchers found that when the
seven (7) leadership practices are applied, there is an increase in students’ perceptions of their
competence and ability to learn. As a result, they take ownership for their choices and their
caring about the feelings of others.

Limitations of the Study
The leadership strategies, teachers’ beliefs and practices, and student’s perception of self
and others are based on surveys (self-reports) of principals and could be prone to bias. Other
measures could be used to validate the responses of the participants. Another limitation relates to
the correlations of the strategies. For example, further studies can investigate the correlations
within each of the seven (7) strategies to determine its impact on the academic achievement of
students. Also, worthy of note, the intent of the study was not to present conclusive evidence to
prove or disprove theories, but rather, to identify strategies that were used by practicing
principals in National Blue Ribbon Schools.

Conclusion
The best way to re-form the educational structure in the United States is to learn from its
past. There have been tremendous strides throughout the decades that have proven effective in
some of the most impoverished areas.This research has identified practices that continue to
surface in the literature as practices that are effective in transforming high-poverty,
underperforming schools into high-performing schools. Thesepractices were also reported by
Nationally Recognized Blue Ribbon Principals as contributors in their turnaround efforts.
Therefore, we summarize the discussion of what process or practices that can be used to
transform high-poverty, low-performing schools in the words of Ron Edmonds (as cited in
16

Lezotte & Bancroft, 1985,p. 301): “We already know more than we need in order to do this.
Whether we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so for.”

References
Ascher, C., & Maguire, C. (2011, January). Beating the odds: How thirteen NYC schools bring
low-performing 9th graders to timely graduation and college enrollment. Education
Digest, 76(5),34-39.
Bass, B.,&. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Boudett, K. P., & Steele, J. L. (2007). Data wise in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education.
Corallo, C., & McDonald, D. H. (2002). What works with low performing schools: A review of
research.Retrieved from Alliance for Excellence in Learning, West Virignia website:
http://www.ael.org/lowperformingschools/pdf
Duke, D. (2006, June). What we know and don't know about improving low-performing schools.
Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 728-734.
Ediger, M. (2004). What makes for failing schools? Journal of Instructional Psychology,
31(2),4-17.
Green, R. L. (2010). The four dimensions of principal leadership. Boston, MA: Allyn&Bacon.
Hassel, B., &Steiner, L. (2003). Strategies for scale: Learning from two educational innovations
program on innovation in American government. Boston, MA: Ash.
Herman, R. D. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools: A practice guide.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
King, J., & Lopez, D. (2008). Turnaround schools: Creating cultures of universal achievement.
Ramona, CA: TurnAround Schools Publishing.
Kozol, J. (1991). The walls speak: The interplay of quality facilities, schools climate and student
achievement. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.
Lashway, L. (2002). Trends in school leadership.ERIC Digest,161(March), 14-37. Available
from ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, College of Education,University
of Oregon.
Lashway, L. (2004). The role of school leadership on transformation of urban schools with low
student achievement.ERIC Digest,169(July), 1-8. Available from ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Management, College of Education, University of Oregon.
Leithwood, K., & Strauss, T. (2009, July 28). Turnaround schools and the leadership they
require. Retrieved from Canadian Education Association website: http://www.cea-ace.ca
Lezotte, L.W., & Bancroft, B.A. (1985, Summer). School improvement based on effective
schools research: A promising approach for economically disadvantaged and minority
students. The Journal of Negro Education, 54(3), 301-312.
Malen, B., & Rice, J. K. (2004). A framework for assessing the impact of education, reforms on
education on school capacity: Insights from studies of high-states accountability
initiatives. Education Policy,18(5),631-660.
Mazzeo, C., & Berman, I. (2003). Reaching new heights: Turning around low performing
schools. Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices.
17

Meyers, C. &. (2007, September). Turning around failing school: An analysis. Journal of School
Leadership, 17(5), 631-659.
Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2005). Corrective action in low performing schools: Lessons for No
Child Left Behind implementations from the state and district strategies in first
generation accountability systems. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on
Evaluation Standards and Student Testing.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system. New York, NY:
BasicBooks.
Snow, C. E., Barnes, W. S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I. F., & Hemphill, L.(1991).Unfulfilled
expectations: Home and school influences on literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., &Diamond, J. (2001).Toward a theory of leadership practice: A
distributed perspective.Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
U. S. Department of Education. (2001b). The condition of education.Washington DC: Institute of
Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). School-turnarounds. Washington, DC: Department of
Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/faq/schoolturnarounds.pdf
Wallace Foundation. (2012, January). Perspective: The school principal as leader. Retrieved
from http://www.wallacefoundation.org
Willmott, R. (1999). Education policy and realist social theory. In R. Willmott, Education Policy
and Realist Social Theory (p. 10). London, England and NewYork, NY: Routledge
Taylor and Francis Group.
Authors
Angela A. Brown, EdD has worked as a school administrator for the last 10 years in various
Memphis City Schools,Memphis, TN. Dr. Brown is frequently requested to speak at local,
regional, state, and national conference on leadership for 21st century schools. She currently
serves as principal of Middle School in the Shelby County Schools.
Reginald Leon Green, EdD is Professor of Educational Leadership in the College of Education
at the University of Memphis. Dr. Green teaches courses in educational leadership with a focus
on instructional leadership, school reform, and models for turning around low performing
schools. His research interests include school leadership, team building for effective teaching and
learning, superintendent/board relations, school district restructuring, and the effects of nurturing
characteristics on the academic achievement of students.

18

National FORUM of Applied Educational Research Journal 27(1&2) 2014, Angela A. Brown & Reginald Leon Green - NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS ((Founded 1982), Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief - www.nationalforum.com

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (16)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

National FORUM of Applied Educational Research Journal 27(1&2) 2014, Angela A. Brown & Reginald Leon Green - NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS ((Founded 1982), Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief - www.nationalforum.com