Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS, 17603 Bending Post Drive, Houston, TX 77095

1. Guest Editor’s Introduction
Reginald Leon Green
In Search of Proven Practices that Enhance Student Achievement in
Underachieving Schools
Over the past five decades, educators have been in search of academic programs,
processes, and procedures for use in enhancing the academic achievement of students at all
educational levels. However, during this period, the achievement gap between children of color
and those of mainstream America has not decreased; rather, it has widened. Consequently, the
most recent standards-based accountability movement is calling for school leaders to become
instructional leaders in charge of the instructional program for all students (Lashway, 2002;
Green, 2010). The overarching question that has come to the forefront is: What proven practices
do school leaders functioning as instructional leaders in underachieving schools use to enhance
the academic achievement of all students?
In preparation for this special edition of National FORUM Of Applied Educational
Research Journal, a call for proven research-based practices was issued in search of an answer to
the above-stated question. Responses were solicited in three areas: 1) Leadership Practices for
21st Century Schools; 2) Instructional Models that Work in Underachieving Schools, and 3)
Proven Practices for Educational Reform of Underachieving Schools. The submittal of
manuscripts in these areas is the focus of this special issue of National FORUM Of Applied
Educational Research Journal. The contributors are respected individuals in the field of
educational leadership and write from a research perspective, as well as practical experience. The
work of these individuals offers critical insights into programs, processes, and procedures that
leaders of 21st century schools might use to enhance the academic achievement of all students.
The opening article, penned by authors Weddle-West and Bingham, addresses the
systemic nature of the problems that contribute to the achievement gap between students of color
and white students from preschool to graduate school. Having highlighted the challenges, these
authors provide evidence of an urgent need for a reversal in these trends and discuss best
1

2. practices and model programs that they have developed and implemented to enhance student
success and diversity. Additionally, they cite recommendations others leaders in institutions of
higher education might consider as they seek a reversal in the alarming rate of attrition and the
low number of students of color who matriculate and graduate at every educational level.
The Four Dimensions of Leadership
The research work of the guest editor for this special issue centers around four dimensions of
leadership: Understanding Self and Others; Understanding the Complexity of Organizational
Life; Building Bridges through Relationships, and Engaging in Leadership Best Practices.
Collectively, these dimensions establish a framework for leading change in 21st century schools
(Green, 2010). They provide school leaders with an integrated approach to working
collaboratively with others to solve complex school problems and to bring about sustained
change in instructional programs. Consequently, the work of contributing authors to this special
issue is used to identify and synthesize relevant research that solidifies the importance of each of
the dimensions. This adds depth to how school leaders might use them to effectively enhance
academic achievement of all students, especially students attending underperforming PK-12
schools and students of color attending institutions of higher education.
Understanding Self and Others
For ages, expectations and perceptions have played a major role in how educators have
designed instructional programs to address the needs of students. Critical to the process are the
attitudes, values, and behaviors of school leaders and other individuals who make decisions
regarding programs and activities that serve students. What one believes contributes greatly to
the behavior of that individual (Green, 2010). Therefore, understanding self and other individuals
is critical in the leadership process.
The importance of this dimension is addressed by three contributing authors, Cleveland,
Watkins, and Moak. Collectively, they embellish this dimension, speaking to the advantages and
disadvantages of self-understanding and engaging in a discourse regarding how school
leadership and classroom instruction can be enhanced with self-understanding. With self-
understanding individuals have the willingness and ability to recognize and deal with their
emotions. By developing an understanding of self, individuals reach higher levels of self-
understanding and enhanced performance. Greater self-awareness leads them to an
understanding of why they behave in a particular manner (Green, 2010). Knowing and being able
to predict what influences their behavior enables them to redirect impulsive behavior into
positive responses.
Cleveland addresses the importance of understanding self and others from a unique
approach. He reports research that provides evidence of the damage that can occur when beliefs
are formed around stereotypes that influence behavior that is not objective. Using findings from
his research, he challenges teacher education candidates to assess their beliefs and behavior and
to think about: 1) their own biases/stereotypes; 2) where stereotypes originate, and 3) how
categorizing/stereotyping can affect children in the classroom. Specifically, he warns against
allowing the power of bias and prejudice as a result of stereotyping to disempower children.
2

3. Leadership effectiveness is the result of interaction between the style of the leader and the
characteristics of the environment in which the leader works (Gray & Stark, 1988). Given the
multicultural make up of schools, it is clear that if individuals in charge of the instructional
program function from a position influenced by stereotypes, knowledge of the beliefs and values
that influence that behavior can be beneficial in the teaching and learning process.
Consequently, educators serving in any position should examine their belief system and make a
determination if they are stereotyping others. Cleveland provides a substantial body of evidence
to support this line of reasoning.
There are many issues in schools over which school leaders have no control. However,
one issue over which they have control is self-efficacy. Authors Watkins and Moak, citing the
work of Imants & DeBrabander, 1996; Hallinger & Heck, 1998; and Lucas, 2003, offer that the
self-efficacy displayed by school leaders has some impact on teacher motivation and student
achievement. They report that self-efficacy is a judgment of the leader’s ability to organize a
course of action that will result in a desired outcome for the school (Bandura, 1997). Therefore,
individuals charged with the responsibility of instructional leadership must eliminate
stereotypical behavior and believe in their ability to lead and turn around an underachieving
school.
Understanding the Complexity of Organizational Life
The importance of understanding the complexity of organizational life in schools is
illustrated through the work of W. Sean Kearney and David E. Herrington. These authors
explored 90/90/90 schools. The 90/90/90 school concept captures what goes on in schools
comprised of at least 90% ethnic minorities, 90% of students qualifying for free and reduced
lunch, and 90% of the students achieving passing percentages of 90% or higher on standardized
tests (Reeves, 2004). Kearney and Herrington report that leaders of these schools agree that eight
major themes should be considered by school leaders interested in enhancing the academic
achievement of all students. The themes are: 1) a supportive structure; 2) building relationships;
3) principal longevity; 4) stability; 5) trust; 6) staff development based on identified needs; 7)
refining the shared vision, and 8) sustaining a culture of learning and achievement. In one way or
another, these themes continue to surface in the literature that addresses research best practices
and procedures that meet the needs of students attending underachieving schools. Whereas they
contribute greatly to the dimension of understanding the complexity of organizational life in
schools, they also comprise a common strand that runs through the other three dimensions,
supporting the importance of the combined effect of the four dimensions.
Returning to the work of Cleveland, educators can benefit greatly from analyzing what
they believe and value and how their beliefs and values influence their behavior. One factor that
influences leaders’ behavior is their belief about what constitutes high performing or high
achieving schools. Preconceived notions and stereotypical beliefs can distort reality. With the
enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, standardized testing has become a major
focus in determining high performing or high achieving schools. The act assumes that
standardized achievement scores are the most effective way to measure the academic
achievement of students, as well as the effectiveness of schools (NCLB, 2002). However, the
literature on school effectiveness is expanding with evidence that offers that standardize test
scores alone are not sufficient to measure school effectiveness (Heyneman, 2005; Lee & Wong,
2004).
3

4. In determining what constitutes “High Performing or High Achieving Schools” and the
achievement of students who attend those schools, consideration should be given to the influence
of the demographic characteristics of the school, its leadership, as well as the background of
students, their home, and the community in which they live. All of these lead to an understanding
of the complexity of school organizational life. These sentiments are supported by authors,
Gregory J. Marchant, Oscar Ordonez-Morales, and Sharon E. Paulson, who reported that when
student demographic factors are controlled, a different picture of quality emerges. Additionally,
they suggest that if student demographics are ignored when comparing schools, truly successful
schools are more likely to be miss-identified than schools that are struggling. In determining
schools that are effective in addressing the needs of all students, measures other that standardized
achievement test scores must be taken into consideration. Consequently, given that
demographics and background variables exert a significant role in predicating academic
achievement, research attempts to determine school effectiveness must take into account the
inherent characteristics of students.
Building Bridges through Relationships
A number of the contributing authors address the importance of relationships. This
dimension underpins the other three dimensions. The primary focus of this dimension is the
benefit to be derived by school leaders who establish and nurture relationships between and
among individuals in the internal and external environments of the schoolhouse (Green, 2010). It
offers evidence of the need for collaboration between individuals inside and outside of the
schoolhouse. To enhance student achievement in underachieving schools, school leaders and
members of their faculty must commit to daily, weekly, and monthly collaborative initiatives
established around a common concise set of curriculum standards, as well as state and local
assessments (King, 2008; Schmoker, 2006).
Utilizing Best Practices
The underlying purpose of dimension four is to identify proven practices, processes, and
procedures that educational leaders can use to make a positive difference in the academic
achievement of all students who attend 21st century schools, especially students attending
underachieving schools. In search of answers to this quest, author, RoSusan D. Bartee, raises the
question: What must we know and what must we be able to do to lead 21st century schools?
Then, she proceeds to answer the question offering transformational leadership as the leadership
style that is most effective.
In Donavon’s Story, author Marie McCarther demonstrates instructional best practice
strategies that focus on what students love and dislike about school. Author McCarther provides
evidence that students can and will participate in their own learning and when they do,
meaningful contributions are made to the teaching and learning process. At the higher education
level, authors Weddle-West and Bingham share three effective processes: 1) to address social
integration in the campus community; 2) to conduct climate surveys to determine how students
feel about campus life, and 3) to ensure that top-level administrators accept responsibility for
championing initiatives of diversity and setting the agenda for change.
4

5. Conclusion
Schools at all levels can change and incorporate programs, processes, and procedures that
will enhance student achievement in underachieving schools. However, to make substantial
change, school leaders must give critical consideration to the four dimensions of leadership and
the elements that make up each of the dimensions. Collectively, all of the contributing authors of
this special issue inform proven practices, processes, and procedures that can be used by school
leaders who seek to enhance student achievement in underachieving schools. In Search of Proven
Practices that Enhance Student Achievement in Underachieving Schools, the pivotal ones appear
to be:
1. The leader’s development of self-understanding.
2. Avoidance of stereotypical behavior.
3. The leader’s use of a transformational leadership style.
4. The avoidance of stereotypical behavior by individuals functioning in key roles.
5. A focused professional development plan for all individuals serving students.
6. Respect for diversity.
7. A strong sense of self-efficacy on the part of the leader.
8. Utilization of multiple forms of assessments to determine school effectiveness.
9. Involvement of students in their education.
Quite clearly, these are the practices reported by the contributing authors to this special
edition, and we express our gratitude to them for the time, effort, and dedication that they
invested in contributing to the literature that informs proven practices that enhance student
achievement in underachieving schools.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Green, R. L. (2010). The four dimension of principal leadership: A foundation for leading 21st
century schools. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Heyneman, S. P. (2005, November). Student background and student achievement: What is the
right question? American Journal of Education, 112, 1-9.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1999). Can leadership enhance school effectiveness? In Bush et al.
(Eds.) Educational Management: Redefining theory, policy and practice (pp. 178-190).
London, England: Paul Chapman.
Imants, J. G. M., & DeBrabander, C. J. (1996). Teachers’ and principals’ sense of efficacy in
elementary schools. Teaching & Teacher Education, 12(2), 179-195.
King, J. (2008). Turnaround schools: Creating cultures of universal achievement. Ramona:
Turnaround School Publishing.
Lashway, L. (2002, July). Developing instructional leaders. ERIC Digest, 160. Retrieved
from http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest160.html
Lee, J., & Wong, K. K. (2004). The impact of accountability on racial and socioeconomic equity:
Considering both school resources and achievement outcomes. American Educational
Research Journal, 41, 797–832.
5

6. Lucas, S. E. (2003). The development and impact of principal leadership self-efficacy in middle
level schools: Beginning an inquiry. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311 (2002).
Reeves, D. (2004). Accountability in action: A Blueprint for learning organizations. Englewood,
CA: Advanced Learning Press.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Guest Editor
Reginald Leon Green 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.
6