Instructional Leadership in the Era of No Child Left Behind: Perspectives from the United States

  • Anthony H. NormoreEmail author
  • Jeffrey S. Brooks
Part of the Studies in Educational Leadership book series (SIEL, volume 16)


Most large-scale urban school reform efforts of the last three decades in the United States have centered on providing incentives and sanctions for aligning educational practice to standards set at the district, state, or national level. Incentives typically have been provided for educators and schools to meet standards, and accountability has been enacted through various punitive sanctions when schools and educators have not met benchmarks or showed gains in outcome indicators. As pressure for improving student achievement in the current standards-based accountability environment continues to intensify and test results are scrutinized with unprecedented attention, school leaders are urged to focus their leadership efforts on the core purpose of schooling—teaching and learning (Kohn 2000). This chapter discusses the impact of assessment/standards-based reform on instructional leadership within the policy context of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; Chrismer et al., Harvard Education Review 76(4):461–473, 2006; Supovitz, Developing communities of instructional practice, 2001; Supovitz and Poglino, Instructional leadership in a standards-based reform, 2001) and how leadership, not just by the principal but by a wider cast of individuals in both formal and informal leadership roles, plays a critical role in reinforcing instructional improvement and instructional quality that lead to accountability and improved student achievement.


Instructional Practice School Leader Accountability System Professional Learning Community Instructional Quality 
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.


  1. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111–5, 111th Cong., 1st sess. (2009). The RTT fund is described in Title XIV, Section 14006 of the law. See, “The Recovery Act”. Retrieved from Accessed 17 Feb 2009.Google Scholar
  2. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. (2003). The effects of high stakes testing on student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32–37.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. A. (2005). Accountability in education. Education Policy Series, 1, 1–26.Google Scholar
  4. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents and principals can make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Berliner, D. (2005). The near impossibility of testing for teacher quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C, Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 9–21.Google Scholar
  8. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349–378Google Scholar
  9. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2001). The teacher’s principal. Journal of Staff Development, 22(1), 22–25.Google Scholar
  10. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  11. Brighton, C. M. (2002). Straddling the fence: Implementing best practices in the age of accountability. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 30–33.Google Scholar
  12. Brooks, J. S. (2006a). Tinkering toward utopia or stuck in a rut? School reform implementation at Wintervalley High. Journal of School Leadership, 16(3), 240–265.Google Scholar
  13. Brooks, J. S. (2006b). The dark side of school reform: Teaching in the space between reality and utopia. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education.Google Scholar
  14. Brooks, J. S., Jean-Marie, G., Normore, A. H., & Hodgins, D. (2007). Distributed leadership for social justice: Equity and influence in an urban high school. Journal of School Leadership, 17(4), 378–408.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, C. P. (2010). Children of reform: The impact of high-stakes education reform on preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buck, S., Ritter, G. W., Jensen, N. C., & Rose, C. P. (2010).Teachers say the most interesting things—An alternative view of testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 50–54.Google Scholar
  17. Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C (2009). Pyramid response to intervention: RTI, professional learning communities, and how to respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  18. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 205–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cawelti, G. (2006). The side effects of NCLB. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 64–68.Google Scholar
  20. Center on Education Policy. (2008). A call to restructure restructuring: Lessons from the no child left behind act in five states. Washington: Center on Education Policy.Google Scholar
  21. Chrismer, S. S., Hodge, S. T., & Saintil, D. (2006, winter). Introduction to assessing NCLB. Harvard Education Review, 76(4), 461–473Google Scholar
  22. Cizek, G. J. (2001). More unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(4), 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cobb, R. B., & Alwell, M. (2009). Transition planning/coordinating interventions for youth with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(2), 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohen, M. (2002). Unruly crew. Education Next, 2(3), 43–47.Google Scholar
  25. Covaleskie, J. F. (2002). Two cheers for standardized testing. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 6(2). Retrieved on March 5, 2012 from∼iejll/volume6/covaleskie.html.Google Scholar
  26. Cuban, L. (1998). Managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  27. Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Standards and assessments: Where we are and what we need. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from Scholar
  28. Darling-Hammond, L., & Barnett, B. (2006). Highly qualified teachers for all. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 14–20.Google Scholar
  29. Darling-Hammond, L., Rustique-Forrester, E., & Pecheone, R. L. (2005). Multiple measures approaches to high school graduation: A review of state student assessment policies. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from Scholar
  30. DeVito, P. J. (2010). The oversight of state standards and assessment programs: Perspectives from a former state assessment director. Washington: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.Google Scholar
  31. DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.). (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  32. Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  33. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  34. Fusarelli, L. (2004).The potential impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on equity and diversity in American education. Educational Policy, 18(1), 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fusarelli, L. (2007). Restricted choices, limited options: Implementing choice and supplemental educational services in No Child Left Behind. Educational Policy, 21(1), 132–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gayles, J. (2007). Race, reward, and reform: An implicative examination of the Florida School Recognition Program. Educational Policy, 21(3), 439–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Glickman, C., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2009). The basic guide to supervision and instructional leadership. Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  38. Gonzalez, R. (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for local educators and advocates for Latino students, families, and communities. Washington: National Council of La Raza.Google Scholar
  39. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653–696). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Haertel, E. H. (1999). Performance assessment and education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 662–666.Google Scholar
  41. Hall, D., & Kennedy, S. (2006). Primary progress, secondary challenge: A state-by-state look at student achievement patterns. Washington: Education Trust.Google Scholar
  42. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  43. Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124–134.Google Scholar
  44. Herman, J. L. (2004). The effects of testing on instruction. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 141–166). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  45. Hershberg, T., Simon, V. A., & Lea-Kruger, B. (2004). The revelations of value-added: An assessment model that measures student growth in ways that NCLB fails to do. School Administrator, 61(11), 10–12.Google Scholar
  46. Hess, F. M. (2010). Why I’m feeling sorry for Sec. Duncan. Rick Hess Straight Up. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from Scholar
  47. Hord, S. (1997) Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Retrieved from Scholar
  48. Hord, S., & Sommers, W. (Eds.). (2008). Leading professional learning communities, voices from research and practice. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  49. Huffman, J. B., Pankake, A., & Munoz, A. (2007). The tri-level model in action: Site, district, and state plans for school accountability in increasing school success. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 569–582.Google Scholar
  50. Hughes, T. A., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2007). Professional learning communities and the positive effects on achievement: A national agenda for school improvement. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from Scholar
  51. Klein, S., Hamilton, L., McCaffrey, D., & Stretcher, B (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us? Santa Monica: RAND Corp.Google Scholar
  52. Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., & Talbert, J. E. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective tools for school and district leaders. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.Google Scholar
  53. Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth: Heineman.Google Scholar
  54. Kornhaber, M. L. (2004). Appropriate and inappropriate forms of testing, assessment, and accountability. Educational Policy, 18(1), 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lee, J. (2004). Multiple facets of inequity in racial and ethnic achievement gaps. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(2), 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Learning from leadership project: Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. Toronto: The Wallace Foundation.Google Scholar
  57. Manna, P. (2006). Control, persuasion, and educational accountability: Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Educational Policy, 20(3), 471–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Manna, P. (2010). Competitive grant making and education reform Assessing Race to the Top’s current impact and future prospects. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from Scholar
  59. Marshall, K. (2005). It’s time to rethink teacher supervision and evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(10), 727–744.Google Scholar
  60. McGhee, M. M., & Nelson, S. (2005). Sacrificing leaders, villainizing leadership: How educational accountability policies impair school leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 728–734.Google Scholar
  61. McLaughlin, M., & J. Talbert. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  62. Mintrop, H., & Sunderman, G. L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement—and why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Neil, M. (2003). The dangers of testing. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 43–46.Google Scholar
  64. Newman, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. Madison: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.Google Scholar
  65. Normore, A. H. (2004). Leadership success in schools: Planning, recruitment and socialization. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 8(10), Special Issue. Retrieved on March 5, 2012 from∼iejll.Google Scholar
  66. Normore, A. H. (2006). Leadership recruitment and selection in school districts: Trends and issues. Journal of Educational Thought, 40(1), 41–73.Google Scholar
  67. Normore, A. H. (2007). A continuum approach for developing school leaders in a large urban school district. UCEA Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(3). Retrieved on March 5, 2012 from Scholar
  68. Olebe, M. (2005). Helping new teachers. The Clearing House, 78(4), 158–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Platt, R. (2004). Standardized tests: Whose standard are we talking about? Phi Delta Kappan, 85(5), 381–382.Google Scholar
  70. Popham, W. J. (2001). Teaching to the test. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 16–20.Google Scholar
  71. Popham, W. J. (2004). All about accountability/Why assessment illiteracy is professional suicide. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 82–83.Google Scholar
  72. Reese, M., Gordon, S. P., & Price, L. R. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions of high-stakes testing. Journal of School Leadership, 14, 464–496.Google Scholar
  73. Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge of leading 21st-century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22(1), 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sherman, W. (2008). No Child Left Behind: A legislative catalyst for superintendent action to eliminate test-score gaps? Educational Policy, 22(5), 675–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Skerrett, A., & Hargreaves, A. (2008). Student diversity and secondary school change in a context of increasingly standardized reform. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 913–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Smith, M. L., & Fey, P. (2000). Validity and accountability of high-stakes testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 334–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stiggins, R. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 22–27.Google Scholar
  80. Sunderman, G., Kim, J., & Orfield, G. (2005). NCLB meets school realities: Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  81. Supovitz, J. A. (2001). Developing communities of instructional practice. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  82. Supovitz, J.A. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Supovitz, J. (2010). Is high-stakes testing working? @PENNGSE: A review of research, 7(2). Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from Scholar
  84. Supovitz, J. A., & Christman, J. B. (2003). Developing communities of instructional practice: Lessons from Cincinnati and Philadelphia. (CPRE Policy Briefs RB-39). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  85. Supovitz, J. A., & Poglino, S. (2001). Instructional leadership in a standards-based reform. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  86. Tucker, C. (2008). Implementing and sustaining professional learning communities in support of student learning. Alexandria: Educational Research Service.Google Scholar
  87. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Tye, B. B., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Why are experienced teachers leaving the profession? Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 24–32.Google Scholar
  89. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (2008). Accountability, assessments, and transparency: How the final Title 1 regulations support and strengthen the fundamental tenets of NCLB. Washington: US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.Google Scholar
  90. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2009). Race to the top fund; final rule. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from Scholar
  91. U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). Reward excellence and promote innovation. Reauthorizing the elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from Scholar
  92. U.S. Department of Education. (2010b). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from Scholar
  93. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2010c). Race to the top fund: Legislation, regulations, and guidance. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from Scholar
  94. Williams, R., Brien, K., Sprague, C., & Sullivan, G. (2008). Professional learning communities: Developing a school-level readiness instrument. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 74(6). Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from Scholar
  95. Vescio V., Ross, D., & Adams A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Volante, L., & Cherbini, L. (2007). Connecting educational leadership with multi-level assessment reform. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 11(12). Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from Scholar
  97. Watanabe, M. (2007). Displaced teacher and state priorities in a high-stakes accountability context. Educational Policy, 21(2), 311–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Wilson, M. (Ed.). (2004). Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability: 103rd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  100. Wolcott, H. F. (1973). The man in the principal’s office: An ethnography. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  101. Zependa, S. J., Mayers, R. S., & Benson, B. N. (2003). The call to teacher leadership. New York: Eye on Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California Lutheran UniversityThousand OaksUSA
  2. 2.Iowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations