finnigan stewart 2009 leadingchangeunderpressure

8/13/2019 Finnigan Stewart 2009 LeadingChangeUnderPressure

1/34

KARA S FINNIGANTRICtA J. STEWART

Leading Change Un der P ressure:n Examination o fPrincipal Leadership inLow-Performing Schools

ABSTRACT: Through case smc.es of 10 elemen tary schools in Chic ago , this arere examines p rinCipal leadership n low-performing schools. The data include33 1 interviews with teachers. administrators, externa l p artners. and others over az-vear period USing transformational leadership as a lens. we found that pnncipals In scnoors that moved 0 probation In a short period articulated the schoolvision. provided support and resources to teachers. establishe d collaborativestructures and norms, developed commitment 10 collective goals. and managedthe school Their leadership responses were closely linked to their interpretationof the accountabil ity policy All the principal s centralized deci si on making Ourstudy suggests thai districts should carefully assign 10 these schools leaders withappr opriate knowledge and skills and reassign ineffective pnnctpals given theCritical role that principals play In bringing about nn orovement under pressure

n c PIII yea rs . many tnt -an sc hoo ls have IJt 1I des ignat ed as low p fomung and p laced nuder accou nta bth ty sanct ions unde r th e : 0 Chi ldLeft Bthind Ar l o f 2001 Before NCLB, punish ing schools basedOil pe rfo rmance outcomes was an integral part o f a U I Ibt r o f sta te anddis trict ac counta bi lity policies across th e country MintTop : Trujillo.200:1). Schoo ls p lacl d J I r sanctions have low proport ions of studentspertorm mg at grade level. and th py S f T W lngh propo rt ions of low-incomeandminority st ud ents II.S. Depa rtment of Education . 2 K li Tn mak e martors worse. s rune st uden ts S IW l ld their entire educa t iona l ca ree rs cfro mkindergart en throug h 12th gnu lt>--i n lo w-pe rforming sc hool s.


2/34

TIll Illldt'dyillJ Ihl '4 lry o f se hou l :W('OIIllI


3/34

KAAA S FINNIGAN AND TRICIA J STEWARTThruugh case studies o f 10 schoo ls in Chi cago . t his s tudy explored IIIP

leade rship pra rt k-e-s o f principals in low -p r orm ing schools, The studyadds to contempora ry leade rship research hy examining the pract ices andbehaviors of prilll'iprshipis cri tica l in any r ~ a n it is the firs t component in translatmg mt ention into action rljemus . HIS}). Bums ( H1 iR ) is frequently credit ed wit hh n ~ togeth er o p p o s i views of leaderslup-c-name lv. from t hose whoview leaders hip as d ~ within an individual in a pos itio n o f authority who is firmly in charge 10 those who conceptualize leadership a s ti ltinteract ion be tween leaders : 1111 followers (Evans. W )li; Owens . 20I}..l ). ums contended that I('adprs hip shou ld not be conshh-red fro m t1H SP

o l p o s n ~ perspectives: ra ther. th e au thor argued that It'ad t'rship Invol stwo dunensions: transa ctional and transro r mattvc. Tra nsactional leadership rreatos clear SII1 IC lul't'S that support wha t is expected of followers .and it establishes a sy stem of rewar ds or puni shments. TransformationalIf'adl'I'Ship app t' a ls 10 followers ' values and emotions. and it en couragesIh l' g rowth o f individuals and . as a result . t he growt h of IIlP organiza tion(Yllkl Lepstngor. 201l i),


4/34

: OOi )_.- key aspt't 'l o f trans formanona l Ipal prship is tha t of facilitaung o r~ i l l l i 7 . a t f l l l d l ; l I l IBt'nni.. . ~ HIS,;) am illllllH\in,g orgamzationa lptlflll1ll.111n (lIa....... I IS.') hy iIHluc'illJ. followers 10 ad Inward orgama.a I ional ~ o I(lw l'lIs. : on-l). 111is In of II'.ulN sh ip n 'tlllin 'S r n l l JllIsilinrl'l.llil lllShil ls la -twer-n Ih(' I('a lll'r aw l II\(' orga ni7al itula] tuetubers-c-in 1'S SI' IWI. mot ivat ~ 11I1s(' ind ividuals 10 Illun' Iwyond the-ir setr-mto resrs and10 work lowan l l hi' ('0 ] '( 1ive ,good of ti ll o r ,r:an i7a lio n {Kutte-r, I I .Hl1 lfi;

,11 hou-a-, : (Hl I ). AI( 1 m lin,g In Yuk l ( I$l l l l. I IUtlIIhl'r.- o f Iht' u rgan i7a non Ml'l'l l l1Isl. ad miral itm. loya lty. aw l n-s pe ct towardtlu-h-ader, and theya rt' lIIol i' -ltll'lI 10 do moret han the-y m i ,r:illlilly ('X))('('Il'd In dn ( p. :1;) 1 )

Oll r C()/lt'I'pl lla Ii7:llioll of transromumonat 1'.tdtl....hip builds o tT tlnn ...-ent WOI I.: hy IA'illlwf 1 an ti c u ; I ~ l l t S (''Itt. IAil hwlllHI &. .lautzi. : (MI);Leithwood t ' l ;11_ : lJll l : Leuhwood &. Hit'hl. : IJO:l) . whll dl S('riIH11 t ransrouuauona l It'ad t'rs hil in a nuanr-ed mul emu ph-x W;ty . Their t'xp;uull'llt ( 'llt'('I'liOl ll lf 1r.lIlsfonna liOlml lt'at lt Nhi p iud lllll'S four arr-as: st'IIill,g the.hrecnon. (11 ' t'IIII,in/ol llt'tlp lt,. dt'vplll)lillg the OI-g;lIlii':llin ll. alll l lllanOt 'ti ll 'ttilt' n r ~ n i 7 . : l i u n The-se - arr-as an ' lIul 1U...-essartly tli_tint'I aspects of lendl ....hip ; rath e-r, lIlt'y a n ' inlt' 'tralt'l l or m t'rlaJlpill 't const ructs. and th e pmr-.tin S within r-ar-hart ('11Il1 ~ (Ill individual S( IUH II r-trcumstan ces ( iII'S.: f)()4i; Leit hW(HHI. I I H I. n ~ IIt(, diu... ion of tlu- s eh(HII is onen n f I'ITIdtu as instrtu-tiunal 1t 'lu lt>l-ship, mill il I'IWOmp,L...>l S ti l l plinl ipal s ro ll' ill

m 1 i c l l a vi-don, p t t i n ~ ~ h I'Xpl'('lalio lls for starr lU lI l stllliplIIs, andtll'H lnpillg gro u p ,r:ultls A


5/34

K,ARA5 FINNIGAN AND TRICIA J STeWARTmoutronng all asp ects of the school (fro m program implementation 10prfo rmance ). buffer ing teache rs fro m exit'null demands , and dealing wit hpe rsonnel issues su ch a staffing. This la..t a re a buildss on Bums 's (1978)and Ba...s s WR tran sactional dimension of leadership. provi ding depthIn the management beh aviors and practices of lea ders .

o ~ nuu-h of th e literat ur e on transformatioualleaderslup has 1exp licitly a rgllPd fo r sha red leade rsh ip and has be en cr i ticizr-d for thisnm is. io ll ort house. ZOU -I ), a pa ra llel body of litera tur e has contendedthat disl rihuted Of Inclu sive leadership is critical to organ izat ional effectivoness ro.g., Fullan. ZOOS: Spillane. Halve rson. Diam ond . ZOO ). In anilld lls in ' ~ i p envi ronment control is spread throughout the rgaIli7


6/34

smUI)\\ I (: IIf IS J_and Ytnuaki and n a ~ ' l t (201);') d losni llt'lII ITindpals whofUI'u 'w(1 fir-t on I I J l ~ safp,


7/34

I


8/34

, /m , y /Itlr , :l t:l ble t . C8se Stud y School OemOUr. ph ics

Pree and RPduced o il ItySChool Price lunch (0..) R3 :e,E hn lClfy S tudents n) Ra/8 (00)51 100 African Amellcan 400 25t anoo 152 100 Afllcan Ame can 800 35t .auoo53 90 Afll can American ' 00 600 054 90 Afll can Ameflcan ' 00 800 3555 90 Afllcan Amellcan 97 300 25tewc 2

While 156 9 tatoo 89 700 45AfrIC an Am >ncan 0 M . 157 '00 AfrICan Ame4 d verbat im.

\\'f' ('OlllhK ll'cl dat a ana lysis ~ Qsn In t'll lal io llar o ; l \ 'i\ f); so flwan 'It ;Jtuh l; d W. 1to examine princil a llt ;ulpl ....hill, 11u n d ~ prnn 's.s W , lSitt-ra t in ' and ill\ O ln 'l l ( odt s tha t wI'n' dl'l i n 'd from IIII' Ilwo n 'Iiea l framework and t hosl' Ihat em erged fW IlI Ihl' data d l l l i ~ analvsts . For (x mll l' ll',a priori n ll's ilwllll t,.l ll11J


9/34

-I ARA S FINNIGAN Arm TRICIAJ. STEWARTthe acco untability This approac h al lowed our l iS of transfonnational It';-ut P.-ihip as a I('IIS, bur it a lsn ensured thai addit kmalt homes werenot ov erloo k ed as th ev related to sch oo l leadershi p under accountabilitypo licy sanctions .

Analys is involved r-xaminatton of t il l ly SOO \ t TSUS 1,:300 students). di f ferent sta ffing (thesmatte r sd100l had two assistant pnu r-ipals ami the larger school ha d0111'), different leadershi p histories (on e sc hoo l had a p rin cipa l who hadbee n the sch o ol admi nistrator for many yea rs before proba tion: the ot herschool h a d a principa l put in to place inuu ediate ly afte r probation who waspr omot ed from wit hin ). and differe n t e xte r na l partners. wh at set th es etWI) schoo ls apart (hl s idf'S their increased SC OTt S) was that th e ir leaders


10/34

off probauou ;tft 'r 11 few years IS1, t, and Sf, Allhollgh t1wsp schoo ls11 ;1(1SII('('('SSflllly nu-t accountability Illlliey t:llw 'ts , IIU'y would ilw \'ita illyhan ' diffic-ulty sus ta in ing this n 'S HIIISt' gin lI thl' prineilla ls ' lunitcd visionfor S('lll1(11 improvenwn r as \H ' I as the tr ma.teqnato al l enr iou III dp \'p II Iingt lu - ppoplt o r u rg:.miza lioll. 10 011(' of t in' n-aclu-rs . the schoolhad muvr-d off prnbafion only because o f the s a rtses and falls.1101 Jt'C


11/34

I\A RA S FINN IGAN AN D TRICIA J STEWARTprimari ly ()(TllITP. l thro ugh scbootwlde and ~ I f v t l l l t t > l l g . .. and h-d to{ Olll11l011 goals and expectanons. Thei r ongo ing conumtmeu t to authenticsc hoo l improvement W l different from that o f th e p ri ncipals in the o thersc hoo ls, who focused na rrowly on the accoun tability policy requirem ent s(simply i l \ R : above the probat ion cutoff).

Al OIIPof Ihl'SP schoo ls ~ 2 setttng Ihe di rect ion o f III(' schoo l meantt'liminaling p s R n h ~ tha t d id not seem cen tra l to the vis ionof schoo l Improvement . Simila rly, the principa l and s taff a t RIO began ,x


12/34

lht reachers 10 deu-mune who needed assistance and 10 U ~ l S diffen lItO of acnon 10 the pli lld pal (',K . n IHO\ l ). \ ( 11 though the ex ternalpatfne t had Inn ua l authority at the school s ill ,The princ ipa ls o f the s choo ls tha t n-maim -d o n probat iona ry s ta tus

Iried ne-w 1htngs III o t l uff proba t ion , TIlf YIIS( II ;1number o f approaches10 this PIHI: pi loting a reading program ill a few g ra des. nuplenu-nttng apullout p r o ~ for st ud en ts . n >qllir ing mandat ory rea ding or wrtnngblocks, H'cru i ll g Il I W n-ne-hers (p ,g . , Teach for Ch icago Int erns ). hiring a n ';Hli l ig coo rdina tor, lowe rtng cl as s s tzes . ereattng Incent ives fo rtea chers 10 Improve test scores ( l ,g gift ca rd for the teach er with th ehight st gro wth ill scon >s ), la rg t l ing s tuden ts nea r lilt ae-r-ountabihtyt-ut nff fo r ex tra SllPP0l1 , IIIt Ptillg wifh teachers In d isl lIss performance a la , msmuung all-dav kinde-rgart en . ilH1111 lu t lIti ng schnolwide literacyIhl lIlt s , and n q u il ing ol lgoing I ps l prep. TIlt piecemeal efforts nf theseleaders wt-re nol 1 ; 1 of a coherent or s l r a lt g ic at tempt In fa cilitat eorgalli7 liollal cnanae ( I I an explk-t t vtston fo r Improvement . Th is wasc-qn-ciafly In ll wi lh regard to Ihe planning PWCI SS required hy thedtsmct . wh ich was c lea rly developed to comply w ilh dt s trlc tmandatesra t fu- r than hI usect as a mechanism fu r whole-school Improvement . Insevera l sdlHn ls , lhos t Involved in tilt process repo rted c u ~ a ndpas ling M thin gs from the p revious years document rath er than conduct ing all intensive study of what wa s o r \vas no t working in thei r sc hoo lhllSt d Oil dat a. As nwnuoned earlier . Iht, re forms adop ted i ll rtu- finsclullIls that n 'l lI


13/34

R ARA S FINNIGAN AND TRICIA J STEWARTprobation quic kly S2 and S IO) targeted H'SOllfCt'S (includ ing ins tructionalresources] toward thei r vision and provided s up port to teachers il l theireffo rts to im prove. Altho ugh we found f', i dp I('{' of this in bo t h schools .IIU' teachers af S: we re in s tronger agreemen t tha i t hey received tilt' support tllt'y IIl'l dpd from th e ir prtnc tpal to Impro ve their students academicperfo r mance . \ l a llY teacher s a l 82 repo rted that their principal providedthem with the necessa ry resources and supported the m in their work. For{'xa mp lf' , one teacher tn ld u s.

lm enn [the p r l l l i ~ h have to listen to our idf'a.. and she mil :ht say, MOh,I don'l really think that is a gfMK I idea , hUI we mi l :hl t ry it I a in anot he r timean d sIlt' uuglube more recep tive ~ h BUI she does listen. She does hsten ,w Inch I think helps a tot. [Tear-her 3 S'2)IIPH' II1 principa l w as viewed a. SOIllPOIlf' who no only list ened to the

complaints of parents and reache rs but als o iden tif ied so lun ons to th ei rproblems. At S IO the principa l focused on reellocat lng resources 10 support teach ers . inclmling having only one a ss istant principa l, 10 pay fo r tw o111011' re achers and thus crea te smaller r-lass S il l S ill th e primary grades .111is decision lIlay have exacerbated SOIll{' of the divi sions between theprimary-wade teachers and upper-grade teach ers . Finally, in bot h schools,till' principa l had give n leade rship respo si btluies 10 d s ~ adnumstrators regarding the development of teachers (a' discussed Iatr-r, n ganl .illg tho dist ribut ion of leadership). 11l('St' individuals modeled Il'ssolls andhelped reachers examine st udent da ta and consider al te r nat ive instrucn on aap proaches to add ress stud e nts ' needs mort' appropriately. princ-ipal at nne o f the sc hools that 1Il0\H I of f probation slowly (8:1)

(lI IIl',IIt'd more surcr-ssful than the 0111( 1 two at developi ng the peoplewi th in the organiza tion and, t hus. w as more s imilar 10 the schoo ls that 0\ (, ('ra l t eachers a t this s choo l repo rtedincreased pro fe ssional development a nd oppcrt umnes to be heard. as illust rated by nne teacher's com men ts :

SIU' a llowt , us 10 collabo rate anti voice our opinion... And ha.. Ih;ll'swhal s he wn...- a n c i l i o t i l l ~ and l 1 R l : f S l i n ~ ;1.. 0JlJlo s t I 10 Iwillgaurhoritanve . Am s il l ' allows li S to hong what WP 11a\'(' 10 the table. Wt' r- reall' the S l


14/34

1 . 1 I f /,. ., .. I ' 1,' I ... . , . , /Y 'Fm11l ll l lOn '. tt,;td lt'r' ;11 this Sllluol n -porn-d ptl 'iiliu' rommumcanon

011111 ~ I P o n l l h n ~ III t',,s-.. ht't 'a IlSl' tfu-y were.'tin 'lI ff'('ln.mk a lM' lll how In improve e-urriculum anr instruction. In { UIlIrot.t. : , f If : S u-ar-lu-rs a l'Jlu' I f Iht' (IIlu-r schoo ls that ullIn'l l lIfT ml..ationI'lw ly ~ i l d Illalllwy H't,'in 'tlulill im,t1 j'Hlf('S-s illlla l d('H 'llllllll('ntalld a lac-k of , li lwi, ..1 SIII'IM11 - a l l while IIm lt'r Iht' j, 'ad rship fir a priru-ipal whll \\ as later rpll\u\'t'fl frmu 1ln- sd uNII. ( )lIt' h'adwr suuum-d III' thevi, 'ws of many when slw said.

I t lnnk. lu i I f r a l l Ihal Il lI , urn'llI ;llimill is lr;ltor 0 1';lfimilli l ral iull is not ottln-r 1;11',,1 ,11, o r \\ ~ h ' do IIU' Ihil l IIf't 'S. .1ry 1o ' , liS ' Iff l,r nh .1ti Il, such,l u 'ally IIU'slaff In II('mnovanve. . . . I In'd think lilt' .1,hnin islral ionIlIIdl'I-.. III< I \\ hal it is Ih .11 ill Ill(' Inll' rUll 1 f'IS kids 10 h 'om Iwll,'r reade rs.1,,'lh 'r lllft,'nls, IWI 'r thinks rs. Ami Il wsll 'l understnud ;Ilul h I' h .111 is not; 10 all aSl't'cs of ht 'illl': a It lft r. I dOll' Sf'f' If'alk rsh ip , Arlit you know that;l Idlult, ~ ..I I'f'lat i ll s wuh lIarl ll l s. ~ wuh h 'ad l l l'S, ~ relal in l ls wit h kids. (T l'l ld wt Sli)Similarly. a primary sll1llt'J.lV n f lilt' p rincipa l fir Ihl' Ih illl st'll ol In

IIlU\'l ' nIT proha tiun s lo Iy lS I) \\ ;IS 10 ill(,Tt,a.'if' tIll' ~ o f teache rp l1ld k ts---fo r exampb- . hy revn-wmg the- IO--\H't'k a. ;I'SSlllt'lIts ~ by

a h ~ ;11 ,,1 1lIISl.'n:ill.' daKslHumo,; 10 Sl't' ills tn wtiull i.. h p ~IoWt 't'r. tilt' I'ri llcil'


15/34

[ ) A RA S FINNIGAN AND TAICIA J STEWARTthey l l give it 10 yo u. All yo ur ideas people listen 10 a nd w ill he w illingto implement. However. in this one area of our filU1ill j: S, we found 1'S.cOIISiStPlI1 PPI'SI)f'Cl i, 'ps with in a school: namely. a group or teache rs in theupp r grades thought that they d id no t ha n ' the same access to resourcesas the lower-grade teachers did. This finding appeared closely linked tothe process o f lmplemen tmg t he read ing program. whic h th e principala nd e xterna l partn er had initially foused on tmplemenung in th e primarygra des and mor t ,And iI's 1101an easy thing. So teachers in other scho ols, ift llt'y have jmandatedI'ollahor,'llion nme]. u s a drastic change. BUI you have to r('as.o;ur them,You're going 10 like u. \ nd [the prmc ipalj told us. You're going 10 hke u.[Teac he r S: )The teach ers ht' lie\ f'li thai this sc llt'du ling chan ge ma de a d iffere nc e in

the ir effo rts 10 improve perform ance . g iving teach ers tune 10 p la n and ( 0 1


16/34

the rt';ulilll r-uordmator d llrin .g our- of IhllS(' t tnu-s. As 0111 ' pri lH;uy gradete.u-lu-r IIPSt -ribed.mrs ,\ p ;n WI han ' 11 \ 1 ' p rf'ps a nd t w o of Ihosl' prepalil II I IlIl'H' s low ly l ta ll a 11m/-( way III go in

h 'I111S o f d l' \ t' I(ll'ing a IN)S il in ' ('uIlIlH' and dilllat l ' , ye t the I rindp a ls a l 1wn( If 11ll'S(' sl 'hol l ls (S:l aur SlI) d iS< us.wI ('IIIIIIJ ( ' and climat e ,lo; 1,1i()rili l'S, and1(';tdw rs h ~ ; 1 I I 10 s('p huprovenu-nts . 0 111' principa l hrOllj:lht in a ll exter nalorgall il.al io rl (nol their externa l partners r ~ p rohation ) to h('lp buildlht internal roummnit y and develop t rust ;uHong slaff. TIl(' 0111( 1 prilldpa l

n m 1 1 1 l ~ d HlP sd w


17/34

602 KARA s.FINNIGAN AND TRICIA J . STEWARTAs iudir-ated hy this ff'SPOIlS ' mill o the r teac hers ' ~ l teac-her

co llaborat ion was st ill in its infancy. In e ssence, th ese schools had mo vedaw ay from dysfunct ion hu had not truly develope d Into support ive andcollaborat ive environments or profes sio nal learning commumt les (St'PDufour .Eaker. H1f1R; l d ~ h . Talbert . l 1fI:l ) . III addition, teacherturnover had oCCIlITPd at bot h sc ho ols. wh en asked bout the num ber ofpeople f'a\; lIg and whether lilt' resu l t was a posinve or a negative, oneh 'ad ur II I S6 0tNI,

Dh. a p n hl < '; I1Is l' S J Il1P o( the people Ihal I ft we re a little isolatingami llil l k ky atul ou r-and-our nu-an sometime s . Ami il just makes (or a IwUl'rschool when there a re mc e people and 1'\ I'I)OI le gets a long an d everyone likesea r-h other. [Teac her It . S6 )

As her wo rds imply. th is turnover lila... have cont rj buted to tilt' develop1Il t'1 of a mo re ros i n ve school culture.

At l ilt' ot her school tha t mo ved off probat ion s low ly (S4). i1 iscip lil\'wasa major issue, wit h teache rs and admmistrators placing the blame 0 11 onean ot her. thereby n d ~ a lac k o f relational trust . One re son s Im H 1outamong: those that teachers ga\ p explaining why the s chool d id not haw aposntve climat e: T I l' principal had b n a teacher at the school and wasperceived a s h o n ~ favori tism to he r former colleagues. However . at a llthree schoo ls 1hal moved off probation slowly. teachers indicated th ai ther-limate of the schoo l showed s igns o f imp roving a nd that collabo rat ionw as s tart ing 10 occur ;11SOIlH' grade levels.

Int he scho ols th at remained on probationary status. this area of lead ersh ip appeared to 1)(' part icular ... weak , with negat ive school climates anda pe rv si ve lack of t ru st w ithi n these schools , re sul nug in low levels ofmotivation. For exampl e. a t S8 a teacher said,

Staff mo ral e Sf f IllS In I){ down. Pf'opll' SWill In be scared. First of all, theydOll't kn ow the situation with tilt schoo l heing closed up and what's going tohappe n with the sc hool. . . . T hat s an ongoing r-oncern . Morale SWillS to hI've rylow. I me an Il1Iilf' a few pl,,,pl(' SWill like MOh. I can't S.1y thts. rill scaredto say this. WI' like em-h other. hut [Ihey Ihillkl. lf I ha ve sOIllf'lhing to5.1y I nn't say il because o( repe rcussions. And somet imes I reet mat way,I' MI. (Teaehe r S, SR)In one of lh(' scl loo ]s that rema ined on p robation (88 ), teac hers re

port t'd that lh('y received 111 rr-sonrr-es they 11(' f'


18/34

really could, r ill SP; OIlS. Bur nohody gets ;HlYs upp lies .They don't gt'l an yhooks. They IIOII'l ~ any suppo rt (Tear-her 12, SH). Another tea t -her said,There an ' H I IIP W IlIa ltri;lls . WI' can say lilal righl nn w. , , , If a kid has notlllO\'pd, then Itt' '''I ~ somewha t th e sanu-man-rials over.M WIHII askedwhethe-r they w orked to get he r. a teacher a sn statI'd, No, lx-caus e WIdon ' ha n ' tho uuu-, and uuu's 0 111' of Ihf' ~ we brought li p. W(' IIl'p


19/34

MI S, FINNIGAN AND TRICIA J. STEWARTwhile hufft>rill l : teachers Imm the negative aspect s o f th e policy (s uch aslin> threat o f job los.i Of schoo l d OSUfP ). In many ways , these principalswere v p r n ~ < ('cllI lIltahility to their bene fit. as descr ibed by Jacobsonand e o a l : l l l ' ~ C207) . in their efforts to garner support from sta ff andbri ng about improve ment s. They conducted o n ~ g monitoring o f implementat ion and perronnance outcomes anr thus rocused t he atte nt ion ofIIw school s ta ff on student achievement and othe r types of da ta . Theser f>SI HlIlSf>S a re in cont rast to how the principa ls in the other schoo ls Int erpre ted the policy ami related it to the narrow focus on the probationarycutoff For example. in 57 ra ther than buffer teachers from the sanct ionsand reduc-e anxiety and U lWPOIS relanng to these extern al threa ts. theprinr-ipal thn-at ened the teache rs. say ing Ihal they would los e their jobs ifthey did 1101 Improve lwcause the school wou ld he reconstituted.

Although Ihis asp t of managing the organizatio n was s imila r in boths chools. a few related prob lems WPW evident at S ID that d id not emerge atS2- ll:Ulwly. disc iplillP iSSllPS. subs tit ute shortages. and teacher turnover.AI S IO severa l tear-hers thought that the administ ra t ion did not supportthem when they were having difficulty with st udents. alt hough the principal had hired three disciplinarians in an e ffort 10 alleviate th is problemduring the course of the s tudy . In adduton. S IO struggled wit h the staffingof subsnnues. In ract . our- day whi le t ill research Il',UH was visit ing. seventeachers W f P absent a nd no substitu tes had arrived . so administratorswere scrambling to r-over these d ...ses. Typical stra tegies to address thissho rtage involved a...s igllill/t resource teach ers 10 cove r C;L


20/34

n l lilill,l IlI'Wh'ad lt'l s , wu h 111(> lIupl' 11I :IIII1('y wOllld infllst' posil iH' (>IWIl{\'int o I lu-sdu H,I. 1'l1fIJl1111lffff tsof plad lljt IWW a nd , ill a ((>W f ;-L o f lilt' lIi2h turnover.Two StIH, I... that 1ll0\'t'C1off of I rtll mlinn al a sl nwl r pa n ' (5:1 a nd Sti )t'XI li l' llt 'I't1 d mll.l t... ill Il' ;u ltrsh ip afh r bfoinl't: put probation (Olltjnuuediate-Iy, Iht , ot lu-r after a few ,Y('ars Oil I'rnl mtio ll), Sim ila rly, threeof the fin probation schools Iha l werr- st uc k (HoSt' llhoIIZ, WSH; Stoll Fink. I I(J) Ull pruhatjon exper ienced h i,gh 11I l'IIlIn'1' ill It,ul l'rsh ip a ... man daltt by thr- disl r il'l o r , ill 'Ult n L...-. because of Iht s nons tlmess o f thepri tu-jpal. () l lI' ' If Iht ,S Sd llll l\< ; t'xl lt'rit'llCl'd four p a ill 2 years . 11l('pt' Il lt'IUlII turnover of leade rs-cwho shnlllt ha ve Ix-en St'lI ing l ilt' dm-cli on fo r Sd llHllw id t' improvemen t hil i were not Hu-n - O ~ (,Ilou.':h tn dnso cTt';tIt 'C 1(II:llItn2 t... len IUSI' the It',ult'rsh ip kt'l 'I l I I J : lind ht'('a llS 'li lt' m l l l u a l l i l l t l t ; l I l d i ~ and Ints l thai true l'ullal lralinn l l I i n \\'t'n 'Ilt' n ' r reahzed . As tl llt Ip:ldwr at s r) l'lah ( l. you know. pl'tll'lt' takme overalltl ~ in wit h d I ~ a ll illltlt 'i a nd J : : i l l ~ lh is . Anti yon ge tusedIn run- l h ~ and tlwy try to s traighte-n. so you d idn 'l know if you \\ ('1'1' com

nr aomg. 11\('1 (' was no rh-ar alll mp t at the ,lislrit'l It\ '(>1 to prm 'idt Ihtst SI'h (M I,, , with a St'as tl ll t'Cl adm inistralo r; ill snlllt' t.LSI'S, 111(> n-placenu-nt had liuh- tn no t'xpe rie llt t ill a It'.ultrsh ip rol l' ,

Y of tln- pnncipals in t he Sd ll 'lls tha t remained on probation (wit ha(h'k rnuu the probation m l ~ who 1Ilt' 1I101'( 'tl l lt plll ) he ,gan Ilwirimpl'nn 'l\lt'll l ff0l1s hy ~ tl ut Iht, phys ic:11(,Il\'iWlIlllf'llt was mon 'p lp:L-.;m l e . : l l l P I l ) \ ~ t hp ~ h ~ n'plad ll,l windows ). At S IO. Olll' o flht sehon ls.1hal Illm '('d off I,w hation quickly, Iht' pOlll 'ipa l l'('(ognizt'(l llltIlt't'd In tlll t'lltl lo Iht ph )o's k al s tn l('t ll n ' o f t ht' st lmo l. ind ud ill,l: ; a ~Iht inl t 'r iur fur Ih t, fi rsl l ime in 20 )o'Ia ..... tlnd n p ~ hrnk t'll wilUltlws. InIh t SI'huols tha i n ma ilUfl Oil prtlha1iol l wllf 'rf' Ihl 'st, la


21/34

I\ARA S Fltl NIGM I AND TRICIA J STEWARTbathrooms a nd t ha i a child was unnanng ill lilt' entranceway because thereW('H' lO ltaht s Inside t il(' luuhrnom . 111t' changes 10 t hese facilities w ertmon- limn symbolic- gest ures. t ht) we re necessary changes to neg lec te dphysica l st rur-tures.

The p rinc ipals of 1I1P schools th at remained Oil probation focused al-most exc lusively on mcmr ortng for compliance rat her than improvement .{'s ing o )Sf'Pvanons as part of lilt' supe rvIston process In make changesor Increase repo rting requirements was as ra re a provi din g constructivefeed bac k to teachers . F1lI1ht'11I10rt' , this momtormg was ori('III('(1 Inwardpnx-edural isslIf'S, onsunng tha i lesson plans we re complete d or readingprogram components W ) ( visible in the classroom. At S l a teacher to ldus . Mt's so micromanaged he re . They pi ck Oil yon. Like if you d idn't puthow YO Il'n going to group your kids in your 1S 1I p lan s, Not what youare do ing. 111f'y pick on lil t' stupides t things. AI S7 a reacher said, Mthinkthat it is unclear wh al HlPpriorities are, I Iee llike [administrators ) missedIIWIll or they spend a lot o f their en ergy and focus a nd tn ue on probablyabout the fifth Ihing down lil t' foot cha in o f priorities.Mwhe n asked fo r anexam ple. t his teache r responded . Do you have your cha ract er educat ionpost er up? At Sfl a teache r described it as adnunist rarors ' always lookingfor negatives:

Now, you know , I t hink I expect III{ worst so I'm not surprised anymore and1\ '(' r-ome In think of it a Iwin g: I D ' amusin g , . . and this schoo l is falling:apa rt here and no OllP carps becnuse they re so busy lrying 10 do little nasty

to r ert am reache rs . They concentrate more on little vindictive rmelthings. Sometimes t his p lan ' reminds you of Nazi Germany. II's just stup idstu ff . BUI I just COIllP in Ill). room and shut my door. So I dnn 'I even ca r e anymore what Ilwy eto out the re . I know she s goi ng to S;ty there is somet hing Ididn't do, al lfl I'm prepared for it.

SIlt' cont tnued. Ml1f' only thing she eve r looks for is something negativeSlIP crunes 10 your ronm and t'\ ('l)1hing in it can 1)(' pe rfect except for011( [thingl a nd silt' won't see anything bil l that Ol ll litt le thin g,M Anot herSH teacher told 11'1 tha t the message from the principa l w c If 'OU were asuperio r teacher . we wouldn't he 0 11probat ion.DISTRIBUTING LEADERSHIP

Principals who ('lUp loy distnbut ed leadershi p sha re deci sion makingand authori ty with ot her schoo l sta ff {Spillane et a l., 20( 1). Principals


22/34

a (o tro lll ,1I manner. III eac-h ('asl' , t ht' principal had gin -II It'iHk rs hipn 'spotlsi hilitil's to dl'signalf-d :uhni llis l ral ors I'pgan li llg l i lt' dp' l' loPllll'lItof and. 10 sOlm' e xtent . li lt' monito ring of It'ad lt' 's . Tlu-se ind ividualsWOIkt'd d os t'1\ wit h teachers 0 11 all Ollgllillg basts. wh ich ill('h ult'd modpIillg II'SStIIIS 011111jointly e-xamining st udents' data 10 h t'111 te achers IUlt11Hlld l' l'st and l ilt' ern-ct tveness of their lnsrrur tionn l apprnar-lu-s and ( 0 11sidt'r differeut st rateates In help slmll'llls ma ster their wo rk. III Iht' r-asrof S: , t lU's ' ndmtntst rat ors W r t f,d lt'tl .li/('i l i fII., . when -as at S IO lIlt'y\H'rt' H'I/r/i IlY r oo n/ iIlH . . III fact. murh uf t hv instruct ion al g llitla lHpand support at lh l' sl' s d um I s ilt 's r a mp fro m Iht'sl' orber admmtst rators .al lhough rlu- priHci pals in holl l n Is I'S cl t 'llf ly I'xhihilt ' l\ Iht' ir s tn -nglh asinst rurt iona l Ip'l(lpl's . as 'lHl'h as izl' d by Smit h and Andrews ( l IRH). illpr io ritizing t llt' s l' pos il io llS and a lt t' r in ,g the s truct ures a nti p rC1 cicps 10Sll l 'Jl0l1 uu ir wo rk w it h teachers . III hoth cases. t he prind pa ls had s Ironginslructiona l h;w kgrllll nl s that gllidl'd the work of li lt' a dm inis t rators .lntcrest a few teache rs a l 0 11( ' o f I ll('s(' sc hoo ls (S: ) nn -nt inned Ihalcnnuuunka t iun hud unproved aCl oss lilt' schoo l h(' f';Ius t' (If lh t' o ngo ing,UTI 'SS 10 tht' Im-ilitutors . who sp rVl'1 a rit iru l mk- ill s ha r ing h ad wlS 'Ihoughls and ('(lml'm s w ilh t he ptiuc-ipnl . w II';Hi1I 1 desr-rttx-d rlu- iru1'0I 1a ni ro ll' u tlu- Iar-iluators:

Wl'lL ohvioll ly the pmu-ipn l i Ih p .l min;llll But tlu- f:wililalors are\ \ ' 1). \ 1'1) illll' rlaill 10 all of us In ' \\ ollldll'l know ;II IYof tlus stuffunle- till') n lat..d it to II . , . .TIH fadl il;llors an' prohahly tht' most unportaut pI'llI'll' ill IIII'hllil.lings her-a use Ilwy J t 'ally' are in IIH' d as


23/34

I\ ARA S FINNIGAN AND TRICIA J STEWART

I\Tn mf l \ l;R: Withnut your knnw lf'llR 2 or without your consentnn l f;R: Ill'finitely without our knowledge. That s the only thing I am sure of.

IYf f:RU f.ll f.R: Can you gi\ 'f' me an example?n ;\' l fX Staff ill111ltis never theIe 's never timf'. 1112)' dnn 't want to listen '0us. It's a. simple a.i that. They don', give us tune to have staff Input. Tear-her27, S l)

AlthOIl,lth these point 10 limite d dist ri bution of leadersh ip . morework 11('('IIs to bo don(' to b tte r unders tand the extent or ways in whichleaders hip is dist riluued ill tow-p rformmg schoo ls far-ing accounta hilirysancnons . given the limited evidence of thi s e lement in the caw studys('hools.

DISCUSSIONAlthough the ht' llttviors and practices associated with t r.msfonna tiona lleadr-rs hip we re 1101 wid es pread among ti lt' sc hools in our s tudy, the p rinc ipals in tlu- two S('hoo ls that exited probatton uuickly ex hibit ed a numberof thes e. ~ s the Importance (If this theorencallens inunderstand

n ~ It'adt'l's hip in an accounta tuht v con tex t . TIl{ p rinci pa ls o f S2 and S lOprovided di rect ion. set goals . and art iculated high expectat ions for s tudenta nd tr -aclu-r perform ance 111 : )' implemented cohere nt instru ctional prognuus . which ensu red that tea c-hers deve loped their knoy.-l t,dgt anr skillsa nd co ll abo rated MOI IIIlI mstrucuou. TIlt'S(, principals a lso effectivelyreauocated I PSO lll ( t S to .....a rd thei r Imp rovement st ra tegies. Addi tional ly,they for-used on a number o f management pra ctices. ruomtormg progra mimplementat ion and removtng ineffe ct ive teachers . Iu tlus section . we disCIISS t he ways in which th ese leaders brought about sc hool change underpressure.

111P leadership bh avi o rs and pract ices o f the p rin ci pals in th e schoolsIhat moved off probation quickly WPI P closely linked to their tnrerpretalion of th e prohal ion po licy. In th ese sc hools and eve n in a few th at Wt 1 {s lower 10 move of0 the principals interpret ed probanon as a positive neel'S'ia l) ' s tep and, as a result . were more nexih ll' and reflec t ive in an effort toII)' different s t rategfes (or disc-ontinue .....hat was 1101working ). In addition,Iht,)' were les s likely 10 hl:ulU' the teachers collec tive ly fo r low s tudentperforman ce (even though they may have blam ed SO Ill P individuals, whomth ey forr ed 10 lea ve ). Finally . and perhaps most Important , these leaders


24/34

j ( I /11 / f :mlr r I IY -Ih I' S .' s {, lll)lll-;WI'Il' Il'ss COIl ( 'P I l Ipc l a bou t distrir-t 1)( llil'i('s a nd 1111lIa l ('s amimore 1'01lC't '1111'ad lt' l'S. l i lt reallocation o f n'SOIllT('S,and the- lllnilitnr illg o f results d ost'ly ~ l l t with ti lt' oVl' ra ll \-is ion o ftht' It' adl' rs ill tho sc hools that moved off proha l io ll quick ly, a vis ion thatfocllsl' c Oil s tudent growlh and ove raftlean u n s . not me relv s auct ions o rcutoff s('o n 's, T hro llg h a s tro ng PlIlphas is on their o ~ z l 1 i ~ goalsas \ \ (11 as the-ir at tempts 10 align


25/34

{jill ARA S FINNIGAN AND TRICIA J . STEWART

policy, bill because of a mora l responsibility 10 Improv e. T adJ( 1 S in th esesc hools shar{'fi a seuse based 0 11 their inte ractions wi th administra tors .ow' of MWI r(' al l in this toget he r and one of rallying toget her to proveevr-rvonv wrong.W ra ther tha n a f{'{'ling orbemg bla med hy their pri ncipalsThis c-limate was d ea rly link ed 10 th e relational trust among teachers andadministrators Inthes e schools. In con trast. in til(' scho o ls th a t re mainedon pro bat io n o r we re slow 10 0\(' off, teache rs t hought that admtmsua tors we re acung in ways that ran coun ter 10 their be lief systems a ndh IiI'\ ('(1thai Iht'St, pr incipals were responding to ex te rna l pressures fWIIluu-centra offk .

TIlt' principals of all 10 scho ols were describe d as to p-down leaderswith cent ral ized aut hority, TIl(' unwtllmgness to decent ralize author ity Ofco n trol ma y st em fro m th e threa t conditions resulting from the high sta kesas, ,o< iatt l l wit h accOIllllahilily policies . .lar-nbso n and coll eagues (2007)contendedt hat in unstable environments , strong and more fonua l leadership behaviors lIlay be l l ( ( {'s. try to reestablish coherence and direction(p ZH:l) In the schools th a t moved o ff Ilrohation qui ckly, Ihis des ign nutOJlly inst illed a se nse of coherence acro ss tilt Sd l O O I hut a lso exe rted afonu o f cont ro l. Allhough it m ils against tfu- lite rature Oi l distribut ed leadershi p and shared docts ton making, Ihis cent rali ze d response of pri ncipa lsill low-perform ing schoo ls is I0t given that the orgamzanons\\ 1 1' under th reat Ja son . & Sparks, 2002; Slaw et al., WSl ).TIlt.. schools th a i quic kly I O\'I'd off probation provided opportunities fo rtear he rs to o ffe r input into decisions, a nd the princi pal > shared mstruc t ional t'U INs hip with key adnnmstrators yet ret ained tight cont ro l OWl'organiza t ional decisions.

Finally. t he pri ncipa ls t ha t qu ick ly moved off proba t ion fol lowed asequential n u ltring o f 1(',H1PNhip lIpnn hf' ing placed unde r sanctions .the pri ncipals ~ n by clearly a l1i1'lllaling the vis ion and ti l l. e xpecta nons fo r a ll s lndl' nts to succeed and that . as an organization, they couldimprove. The principals for-used IlI Xt O il s ta ffin g a rrangements andhufft' rin l ( Illnnal ing the o rgan tzanon ), rotlo wed by ensuring t ha t th eSd lOOI hacl a tru s ttng a nd collaborat ive envt romuent that was focusednn inst rurttona l Imp rovement (developing t he orgamzanon ). In f S. l{ IW { ,lea dership was more dyna mic tha n what ma ny of the theories wo u lds lIgl ps t as the principals a ttempted to bri ll/ about sr-hool Improvemen tunder pn 'ss lln ' , Unfortuna te ly. the major ity of schools did not appearpo i t'd In 10\'(' past Ihf'St' in itial leaders hip stages gtven their narrowfo c-us on acr-ounta bilny ta rg ets ( \ ( l SUS Imp rovem ent ). Inadequat e s up


26/34

Gil ~ h it is mtormattve 10 examine IIll' two principals whos e s choo ls

1ll0\'1f1 off proba tion quickly, pe rha ps it is even mo rt' crit ica l to w ort' osf' ly ClIllsiciN the ot her I 'ighl priru-ipals 10 nude rstatut why transfer d ~ was ran ' ill th l 'sp Iow-pe r tonmng schools. ldenti fyiug

IIIl' factors thai hinder 0 1 fm-ilit au- suona lenders lup ill Iow-pert omungschoo ls is distim-t from uncovering the cha ractensncs o f leaders in highpt r fo n lling or effect ive schools. First . flu- f i l 1 l l i n ~ s ~ t s that the a('(Hlllll. lhililY prt 's.>Ill l 'S appear to hI' ton slrong for many loaders . n ~ill an tuuuteut led l OtlSt'II ('Il( P of foc lls ing on t he I IU l ...ure ( t i l t cut off]rat her than s tudeu t Iemutng or organt zattonal performam-e. '('OIHI.Iheses( lIoo ls required changes 10 Ilndl'rlying norms and oxpectauons Ihalproved diffu-nlt willi tho curren t staff \\'IWl I ';lS Sl l I pr inC'illa ls \\ (,t'dt dou t Ihost' tea chers who were 1101 comuut ted to the difficu lt prO('I'SS ofs(. hool Improvement umb- r sanctions . there was 110 fo rma l mechanism o rplOn 'ss fo r thi s . Third , 111 (' account ability IHJ iCy itself led 10 a Sf IISP ofu.-g, 'n ey fo r uuprovemen r that resulted in greater cent rahza tton of dectsfon makin /,: a nd Ih al may han ' in fact undercut some of the Import antpron 'ssl 'S I H t t SS lI ) to 11('\'f'lop a s i ro ng o r ~ n z n (,uli nn with high1, \ ', 'ls o f t rust and sha red norms.Tilt ' two principals that quickly \ offIfrtlllS fOI most h 'a d lt'l :'lspeaks In l ht' gn ah l relationa l tru ...1 ill Ih,'S ' schools, as well as the finnaliglllnt' lli of Ih('S ' s l l1H IIlH'S wuh the shan' t vtston ali t expectanons oftl lt' sl ;lff.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICAnONSTlns st lltly informs lilt' re-seart-h on transformatioua lk-adership and lowp r fon n ing SdUHIls i ll Sf. '\ t'l a l ways . F irs t , in Iht'Sf. set tings. focus anti el l'herence appe re to be a cri t ica l aspect o f se tting t he direc tion for Sf. 'hoolImprovement . IRSS effect ive leade rs for-used narrowly on the accountability largl'ls as ti ll goa l \ t I SUS student learn ing an d schoo l improvement.St'( 'tmd, pri nd pa lt who did 1101 pay sufficient attent ion to any o f thesefour area of loaderslup WI' I t' less Iikt'ly to show s igns o f Improvemen t.Having a vision was Hoi enough: Th e more ff{'clin ' principals in t hisSilldy also provnled t he suppo rt a nd n SOIl H s JH( ('SS U) to dt' \ t' lo(l lht'knowlt'tl/. p alll i skills ' If reachers: Ihey t'st al flis lwtl ('llllall' Irat in ' st rur-t ures


27/34

ARA S FINNIGAN AND TR+CIAJ STEWART1>:ldt P. hip were evident in rhe 100. performing S< hools thai move d of f probutiouary status quic kly, { h l ~ attention to sta ffing. Inst ru ct ional supp011. monito ring of pe rfor mance , and buffering from exter nal demands .These were nor


28/34

Ii 1:3Fina lly, 1Ill' s ludy has important imp licat ions fo r p ral'l ic(' as it relates 10

tln - ongoing prflft's-s ioll a l dovelopment of prilld pal s in t1wsp schoo ls andthe dis trir-t support of these leaders . Although ma ny of th e prindpi,ls illthis s tlldy e-ould haH ' us ('d add it iona l support in s tn llgllll' l1 ing their transact iolla l It' illll 'rs hip IIPha, iors , their ah ility to set tho dir ec t ion. developpt > IJllt' . Hllli de-velop l ilt organiDtlioll was PH'n mor t ' r-rjt u-al , To trulyhli ng illHllli organizntionul improvement . t1 istriet s IIII1 St Iwgin by llilild illglh t h'iu t 'rs h ip r-apar-ity wuhiu sd lno ls under a( ('ol llltah ilily policy sanelions Withou t th is anenncn to Ill(' iuterua l It'ilt el s h ip c:lp ac ily, tlu-n- islitt tr- like lihood tha t t ht st, school... will uverconu- their lus toncs o f II)\'iIlI'rf(mmu I( IAPPENDIX: CASE STUDY SCHOOLS AND PROBATIONARYSTATUS AS OF 2000 2001

roo to Years onSchool uring Study robation Years on robation

Oil Year 1 , 1996 19971hrough 1998-1999:0 0 Year 2 , back on 2000-20012 0 11 2 1996- 1997Ihrough 1997- 19983 011 3 1996-1997 Ihrough 1998- t 999, 0 11 3 1996-19971hrough 1998-19995 00 , 1997-1998lhrough 2000-20016 0 3 1997- 1998lhrough 1999 -20007 00 5 1996-1 997Ihrough 2000-20018 0 5 199&--1997 lhrough 2000-200 19 0 5 1996-1997 Ihrough 2000-200 110 Oil 2 through 1997- 1998

NOTES.-\ l r f> \ iolls u p ;io n o f th is article was pH'sl'nll'll a l th e eoe nl('l 't i llg o f thl' Amen1'0111ElhK,ltillllal R''Sl'a l'( h A..soctanou. SIII'('ia l l han ks III.lemufer l lay and .lohu(). Ea stoll fOl tlu-ir p: llidmwl' 0 11 11lf' p rojl, t am i IIII:' ~ Founda tion fo r itsslIlIPo rl of th is s tudy,I . \ llll' that lllallYIlrh;1I1 di strict s, illl hlllill i: the flleuSof uus sillily 'hie Ol :I) PublicSd uHlls; CPS , hOl \-1' ht'l'Il I1\:ljority for many years. In facr. thf' (' III 1 l'lItd 1Il0 l :rOll1 ll it s of Cltica l':0' 8 )' l Iow Income and 8' l wlun- ( fil':llrf'Shased 011 the CPSw d lsill' I, a re similar 10 what Hess ( I { I ) I ) fl llllld :W years agl l: I tunng 1 187- llI8R, thr


29/34

6U I \ARA S FINNIGAN TRICIA J STEWART3. n ', f'r tuue, t he ba r was raised even highe r. In addit ion , a fte r this study the CPSbegan usin jil mort' perfonnnur-e indica tors. f'xaminilljil growth. and fOIW.II'I/Id {'.r/ y- II/thms. /'> pw York: ree1' ( Ss.Bennett , A. (211111,April). 171t' l i l i r ' I f IIwllry ' ( 11/ '1; (r fl it CI, ;t'' 'Jo

1 / ' 1i 1 '/ ; 11 Paper presented a f the American Ed ucational Research A


30/34

('Jwpmall , C , & Harris . A. (200 11. hnproving r i 'I 'I1I1'; '/ . lllf'nt:uy

sd uM,ls: A ....11 fO I par ent o h n Jm t I ; / ,, / 'n/ in / i ll , it 'I I/,\,;, /:1). ~ : : ~ ~


31/34

II,ARA S N AND TRICIA J STEWART

d r i l l ~ E, II.. . Sullivan. A. , ( I f f i ). Beyond the bOlllldari (':,;: In llcipals, parentsan d r-onunuuines h a ~ IIH' se-hool environment. In K Lei thwood (Ed.),JII I 'T II t i ' l I/ f l II,(I/f' : Ir ,v/llf'fll imm i 1('(/lf,'I-sli i / , fl l ld , I , j is' , fio (pp.

t Dord recht. l f'lh( rlalHls : Kluwer A('adf' lllic,l la tbnae r. P.. &. Hec k . R. II ( 1fl H1). Rf'ass f'SSi n}l; IIIf' prtneipal's rote in :';('llIM ,1 f'frec ttveness : A review of empirica l resea rch. Hl80- H1fI5. Nti l/r (f t i mmf .'l , lm i ll

is /m/ j () Im ,. ' ' ' '.II , .U( I ). 5- I-t.Hess . ( ;. A . .lr. ( lfIlII ). Chicago school re fo rm: A response 10 unmet needs uf s ln

Itf 'I l lS at risk . In I t .I. Rossi ( Ed.}, Sr/mo/' 1/11 , ( .r' ' I l td./i vfIJlf'w ,I.:.ti,r //f,...i / j /V ' 1 111 11 (pp. 20, - 228 ). New Ynrk: Tear-hers College.IIt'S.>, (; . A.. lr. ( l fI l l). EXPf'f I.1tioIlS, opportunity. capar uy , and \'\; 11 : TIIP four essen

lial componen ts o f ~ o school reronu : l/r l/ l iOl/ll 1 J' i(' 1/, J:I(1). .19-t- l17..JI f n JIIIIff > f 'i lff /i f/'.lim , ' 1/111 , r lillY' /'/YIf/IY/IfIs, Phil


32/34

61i~ h a h 1'. Jackson. p,. 8< Spa rks . L. An exploratory d y into failu re in

s ll(,(,I' ,,,fll l O I ' ~ a o Till' easp o f Marks and Spem-er. l td l i ,11 .w nw / 1/(,l f l l l /ll W'/lfI ' I II, 1,1. n~ l i l \I . n..8.: 1I111l('nmm, A ( Wil l) . (JIII/li l l l i i ' Y , 1111 ,/ 1; (211 11 r-d. ). Tholl'

sand I )ak'i. CA~ l i l l t W P II. TIlt' of sam-nons in Inw-pf>I'forming Sif'W YOlk: Lonaman.St' hring , P. B 8.: Brvk. A S. (:: OOO). Schoollen rb-rship and the hotl ollllilH' ill Chi

a ~ / 'lI i 111'1 /11 K /'I , N/ {ll), I IU- I I:1.Smith, W. F.. 8.: , \mll ews, II. L. ( I lSIl). 1 ' / I lI ' l i l> ,,1 ,d I ,hi l : 1/,,11 II/ 'i l l / ';I dIk,' d O;'I>'/I(/'. Alexandria . \ 'A : Assoctauon for Sllpel-vision an d Cumruhun 1-' \'P]ol,mt'HI.Spillalw , .I. P., Ilimllond. .I. B., Burch. P.. lIalll'tt, T.. .IiI.., & Zoltnpf'i, .I, (200'. ),

n g n ill l ilt' mill/til' : Se hoo l le;l.tlt'f'i andth e enat-nuent of arr-ouutabilitypolir-y. f;d f/, '/ lI i ,,,,I / ,,l i n J, (. 'i(5 ), ' :H -i(i2 .SpillaJlt', .J. P., lInlw rso n, R. & DimuondJ. B. (: lJOI). s se hoo l lf'ade l-Shipp rad i( t' ; A rhs tn huredpe rs pecnve . f;t/'I' III i /111H . YII1'I1I'I , . 1(:3), 2:l-: S,S law , B. .\ 1 Sanllj,lalllts, E 8: Inuton. .I. E. ( 1 IS I) . TIlft>lI-rigi,lity pfff'


33/34

618 I\.P,RA S FINNIGMI AND l Rte lA J STE WARTSfnll. & Fink. D. lp :It' ). n t U anr ~ :U r :; 1 ,.,d lf .;(, ./i ,.,I1'....IIf ' , / , ,,1 j ,,,,,,,,,r,, , . Buckill l h,ulI. ti l\: Or-J Universlry 1r('S.


34/34

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

Author:

Title:

Source:

ISSN:

Publisher:

Finnigan, Kara S.; Stewart, Tricia J.

Leading Change Under Pressure: An Examination of Principal Leadership in

Low-Performing Schools

J Sch Leadership 19 no5 S 2009 p. 586-618

1052-6846

Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group

4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lenham, Maryland 20706

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced

with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is

prohibited. To contact the publisher:

http://www.rowmaneducation.com/Journals/JSL/

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or makeany representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independentlyverified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

finnigan stewart 2009 leadingchangeunderpressure

Documents