Advertisement

Expanding Learning-Focused Leadership in US Urban Schools

  • Bradley S. Portin
  • Michael S. Knapp
Chapter
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 25)

Abstract

This chapter describes the results of an intensive, qualitative study of US urban school leaders’ work, in 15 schools across four states. The study examined leaders with supervisory authority (principals, assistant principals, department heads) and their nonsupervisory counterparts (teacher leaders) who were engaged in individual and collective efforts to improve the quality of teaching and learning in their schools. The schools in this study were finding ways to support progress among a diverse student clientele, share the leadership work among various staff members, and align resources with a shared agenda for improving learning across the school. This chapter suggests lessons and provides images of possibility for schools, and for those who support the work of educators in schools, concerning the ways that leadership can be focused on the learning of students, staff, and the entire school community. The study findings suggest several ways of thinking about and exercising learning-focused leadership in these schools that may help to explain why they are doing well, and how others could do so. In particular, the chapter portrays: (1) what it means for leaders to work within a demanding environment; (2) what supervisory and nonsupervisory leaders do in these kinds of settings; and (3) what their work implies for the new learning they will need to do.

Keywords

Professional Learning Urban School School Leader Accountability System Teacher Leader 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1996). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Obrochta, C., & Fogelberg, E. (2005). Literacy coaching for change. Educational Leadership, 62(6), 55–58.Google Scholar
  3. Bryk, A., Sebring, P., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S., & Easton, J. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cawelti, G., & Protheroe, N. (2001). High student achievement: How six school districts changed into high-performance systems. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.Google Scholar
  5. Coggins, C. T., Stoddard, P., & Cutler, E. (2003). Improving instructional capacity through school-based reform coaches. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 478744).Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102, 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Copland, M. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Copland, M. A., & Knapp, M. S. (2006). Connecting leadership with learning: A framework for reflection, action, and planning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  9. Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Birman, B. F., Garet, M. S., & Yoon, K. S. (2002). How do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of professional development that districts provide teachers? Teachers College Record, 104, 1265–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donaldson, G. A., Jr. (2007). What do teachers bring to leadership? Educational Leadership, 65(1), 26–29.Google Scholar
  11. Drago-Severson, E. (2007). Helping teachers learn: Principals as professional development leaders. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 70–125.Google Scholar
  12. DuFour, R. (2002). The Learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 12–15.Google Scholar
  13. Fruchter, N. (2008). Plus ca change – Mayoral control in New York City. In W. L. Boyd, C. Kerchner, & M. Blyth (Eds.), The transformation of great American school districts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  14. Gibson, S. (2006). Lesson observation and feedback: The practice of an expert reading coach. Reading Research and Instruction, 45(4), 295–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gordon, B. G. (1992). The principal’s role as school leader. Educational Research Quarterly, 15(4), 29–38.Google Scholar
  16. Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C. (2007). The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in school. Journal of School Leadership, 17(2), 159–194.Google Scholar
  17. Hightower, A., Knapp, M. S., Marsh, J., & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.). (2002). School districts and instructional renewal. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hill, P. T., & Celio, M. B. (1999). Fixing urban schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  19. Honig, M. I. (2009). No small thing: School district central office bureaucracies and the implementation of new small autonomous school initiatives. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 387–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Honig, M. I., Copland, M. A., Lorton, J. A., Rainey, L., & Newton, M. (2010). Central Office Transformation for District-wide Teaching and Learning Improvement. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching & Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  21. Hubbard, L., Mehan, H., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Reform as learning: School reform, organizational culture, and community politics in San Diego. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Knapp, M. S., Bamburg, J., Ferguson, M., & Hill, P. (1998). Converging reforms and the working lives of front-line professionals. Education Policy, 12(4), 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., & Talbert, J. E. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective tools for school and district leaders. Seattle WA: Center for the Study of Teaching & Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  24. Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., Honig, M. I., Plecki, M. L., & Portin, B. S. (2010). Learning-focused leadership and leadership support: Meanings and practice in urban systems. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching & Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  25. Knight, J. (2006). Instructional coaching. The School Administrator, 63(4), 36–40.Google Scholar
  26. Leander, K. M., & Osborne, M. D. (2008). Complex positioning: Teachers as agents of curricular and pedagogical reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. L. (1999). A century’s quest to understand school leadership. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 45–72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  28. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Chicago: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  29. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Loveless, T. (2009). The 2008 Brown Center report on American education: How well are American students learning? (Vol. 11, No. 3). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  31. Lowenhaupt, R., & McKinney, S. (2007, April). Coaching in context: The role of relationships in the work of three literacy coaches. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  32. Massell, D., & Goertz, M. (2002). District strategies for building instructional capacity. In A. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. Marsh, & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 43–60). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  33. Murphy, J. (1992). The landscape of leadership preparation: Reframing the education of school administrators. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  34. Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ouchi, W. G. (2006). Power to the principals: Decentralization in three large school districts. Organization Science, 17, 298–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Payne, C. M. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  37. Plecki, M., Knapp, M. S., Castaneda, T., Halverson, T., LaSota, R., & Lochmiller, C. (2009). How leaders invest staffing resources for learning improvement. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching & Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  38. Portin, B. S., DeArmond, M., Gundlach, L., & Schneider, P. (2003). Making sense of leading schools: A national study of the principalship. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  39. Portin, B. S., Knapp, M. S., Dareff, S., Feldman, S., Russell, F., Samuelson, C., & Yeh, T. L. (2009). Leadership for learning improvement in urban schools. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching & Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  40. Resnick, L., & Glennan, T. (2002). Leadership for learning: A theory of action for urban school districts. In A. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. Marsh, & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 160–172). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rossow, L. F. (1990). The principalship: Dimensions in instructional leadership. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  42. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1987). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  43. Smylie, M. A. (1994). Redesigning teachers’ work: Connections to the classroom. Review of Research in Education, 20(1), 129–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. Washington, DC: Council of Great City Schools.Google Scholar
  45. Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  46. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004). Theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stoll, L., Fink, D., & Earl, L. (2003). It’s about learning [and it’s about time]: what’s in it for schools? London & New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  48. Supovitz, J., & Klein, V. (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: How innovative schools use student performance data to guide improvement. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  49. Taylor, J. E. (2008). Instructional coaching: The state of the art. In M. M. Mangin & S. R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp. 10–35). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  50. Thompson, C. L., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341–375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  51. Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  52. Walsh, K. (2006). Aligning an instructional system to close the gap: Illinois School District U-46. Mill Valley, CA: Stupski Foundation.Google Scholar
  53. Wayman, J., Brewer, C. A., & Stringfield, S. (2009, April). Leadership for effective data use. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Washington BothellBothellUSA
  2. 2.Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, College of EducationUniversity of Washington-SeattleSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations