To Share or Control: Administrative Leadership in High-Poverty Schools and its Relationship to Teachers’ Efficacy and Retention

• In Event: Supports, Challenges, and Opportunities: Examining Teachers’ and Administrators’ Experiences in High-Poverty Urban Schools

Abstract

Purpose

Recent research and policy point to the vital role that principals play in school improvement (Leithwood, Patten, & Jantzi, 2010; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). At the same time, the job of school leaders serving high-poverty students has become more complex (Orr, Byrne-Jimenez, McFarlane, & Brown, 2005). This paper explores teachers’ assessment of the work of administrators in such schools. Findings reveal how administrative choices and actions directly affect teachers’ work and their plans to stay or transfer.

Theoretical framework

In our analyses, we use the conceptual framework of distributed leadership (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004) to examine principals’ relationships with teachers across the six schools in the sample. According to this framework, the potential for leadership is distributed among teachers in the school. We examine whether and how principals’ expectations and actions influenced teachers’ work and contributed to teachers’ sense of self-efficacy.

Data and Methods

Data for this paper were drawn from a larger, qualitative study of teachers and administrators at six high-poverty schools in one large, urban district in the northeastern U.S. These schools served high-poverty students, yet were not chronically failing. Participants were drawn from two elementary schools, one K-8 school, one middle school, and two high schools. We conducted interviews with 10-25 teachers and administrators at each school, for a total of 95 interviews. We reflected on emergent themes using thematic summaries and then coded transcribed data. This allowed us to look across the sample and to identify patterns within and across schools.

Results

Across the six schools, principals had similar priorities. Yet, they approached these priorities differently. These differences were apparent in the extent to which they engaged teachers’ knowledge and preferences in efforts to improve instruction at the school. Administrators were focused on creating orderly cultures, using data to drive instruction, creating structured time for teacher collaboration, developing appropriate professional development opportunities, connecting with students and families, and implementing effective curricula. However, differences emerged in how principals approached these priorities.

At some schools, administrators recognized that leadership potential is distributed. They created opportunities to work with teachers on improvement efforts. On the other hand, some administrators were more instrumental in their use of positional authority. For example, the use of data was a central priority in all schools, but in some schools data were used primarily to evaluate individual teachers’ success, whereas in other schools administrators supported teachers in the use of data to inform instruction.

Overall, teachers in the sample reported that they valued the administrative priorities set forth at their schools. However, teachers preferred schools in which leadership was distributed, not only potentially, but actually—where there was a strong, unifying professional culture and they were regarded as experts with good judgment.

Significance

Findings from this paper will inform policymakers, researchers, and practitioners who seek insight into leadership practices at high-poverty schools. This paper details potentially effective administrative approaches for such schools. It contrasts leadership decisions that were well received by teachers and those approaches that were not.

Author

• Susan M. Johnson, Harvard University