INTRODUCTION
Today's American educational system is facing a revolutionary
change involving high-stakes testing designed to raise student
achievement. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is potentially the most
significant educational initiative to have been enacted in decades
(Simpson, LaCava, & Graner, 2004), and NCLB affects virtually every
person employed in the public school system (Heath, 2006). This
legislation is unprecedented in its expectation that all students,
regardless of disability, native language, race, socioeconomic status,
or ethnicity, meet the standards in English and mathematics. Albrecht
and Joles (2003) verified that NCLB outlined the most rigorous and
exacting set of standards-based strategies; it was enacted for reforming
schools and implemented a mandate that all schools demonstrate adequate
yearly progress.
All schools must make detailed annual reports on the progress of
all children, as well as report the progress of four subgroups: minority
children, children with disabilities, children with limited English
proficiency, and children from low-income families (Heath, 2006). While
schools that meet adequate yearly progress receive financial rewards,
public recognition, and accolades, those schools that do not meet
minimum performance standards receive sanctions and are at risk of the
state taking control of their school for state-initiated improvement.
The rigorous accountability standards of NCLB are undeniable. The
effects are far-reaching, and every individual within each school
community has a vested interest in this era that demands that all
children meet these high standards, regardless of race, language,
socioeconomic status, or disability. Without question, the No Child Left
Behind Act reinforces a change in the way school leadership is perceived
in the United States. The Institute for Educational Leadership (2002)
offers the following:
The impact of the NCLB on the role of the principal is daunting and
complicated by the notion that many principals are learning how to cope
with accountability pressures while they juggle other responsibilities.
The Institute for Educational Leadership (2002) referenced a recent
survey of K-8 principals in which 97.2% rated on-the-job experience as
having the most value to their success as principals. In addition, this
report noted that principals generally have few opportunities for
networking or coaching, which would provide a vehicle for peer support,
sharing information and learning best practices.
The Institute for Educational Leadership argued (2002), "There
is no alternative. Communities around the country must 'reinvent
the principalship' to enable principals to meet the challenges of
the 21st century, and to guarantee the leaders for student learning that
communities need to guide their schools and children to success"
(p.3-4). Therefore, this study assesses principal desirability for
professional development. The paper is organized in the following
manner: The first section provides a review of the available literature.
The second section discusses the design and the administration of the
survey questionnaire. The third section presents the study's
results, and the final section discusses the overall conclusions from
the study.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Over the last decade, an increasingly strong movement toward school
accountability has emerged. According to Moe (2003), its message is a
simple one: public schools should have strong academic standards; tests
should be administered to determine what students are learning; and
students, as well as the adults responsible for teaching them, should be
held accountable for meeting the standards.
Thus, educational systems have been forced to shift their focus
from educating the more financially advantaged and easier-to-teach
children to educating all children, including those who are more
difficult to teach due to difference, disadvantage, or disability
(Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1995). One could argue that educational
systems have developed and matured as a result of the federal
regulations which are currently being aligned with Virginia's
accountability system.
President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 into law on January 8, 2002, as the reauthorization of the 1965
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. NCLB set forth new requirements
for public schools across the United States to show evidence that all
students are learning and making adequate yearly progress. Academic
standards set by states directed that schools be held accountable for
results, and increased resources and flexibility would be offered by the
federal government (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). President Bush
described this new law as "the cornerstone of [his]
administration," and during his first week in office in January,
2001, he stated, "These reforms express my deep belief in our
public schools and their mission to build the mind and character of
every child, from every background, in every part of America" (U.S.
Department of Education, February 2004, p. 1).
Certainly, the notion of accountability is not a new one, as one
form of accountability or another has always been present in American
public schooling (Sirotnik, 2004). President Bush, however, put the full
force of federal authority behind standards-based reform (Cuban, 2004).
The central justification for this legislation was that schools and
teachers were leaving children behind (Gerstl-Pepin, 2006). The
legislation demands more of states and school districts than any
previous federal education law (Jennings & Kober, 2004). Former U.S.
Secretary of Education, Rod Paige (June, 2002), acknowledged that, while
federal policy has had a significant impact on America's schools
and children since the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act in 1965, many American students continued to lag behind.
Under NCLB, schools were to ensure that 100% of students achieve at
levels identified as "proficient" by the year 2014 and to make
mandated progress toward this goal each year. NCLB has far-reaching
implications for those who work in public education. NCLB was different
from other initiatives in that its main thrust was to promote high
standards by holding schools and students accountable for outcomes
rather than inputs or regularizations (Heinecke, Curry-Conrcoran, &
Moon, 2003).
THE ERA OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTABILITY
According to Lashway (2000), "Accountability is not just
another task added to the already formidable list of the
principal's responsibilities. It requires new roles and new forms
of leadership carried out under careful public scrutiny while
simultaneously trying to keep day-today management on an even keel"
(p. 13). Principals' pre-service and in-service training may not
have prepared them for the dual challenge of understanding data-driven
decision making and guiding their learning communities through the
changes in attitude and behavior that the high stakes accountability
environment demands (Bennett, 2002). Additionally, accountability, by
definition, is about a school's obligation to society, so it will
never be just an internal matter. The principal is the point person in
responding to community concerns and, at the same time, proactively
telling the school's story (p. 13).
Although past accountability standards provided a less complicated
and less public approach, this is not the case in the present era of
high stakes testing. Comparisons of scores are inevitable in this
environment, and test-driven decisions have a ripple effect on the
community. Accountability must be shared among all participants because
far-ranging results depend on cooperation and collaboration (Bennett,
2002), and the primary responsibility for meeting outcomes belongs to
the principal. Even the severest critics of high stakes testing
acknowledge that assessments are necessary for a variety of
purposes--public accountability, diagnosis of student strengths and
weaknesses, and evidence for teachers and parents that students are
learning what they should (Lewis, 2000). Where they disagree about
assessment, however, is where a single test is used to make major
decisions about a student, such as high school graduation or promotion,
and when that test becomes the basis of decisions that significantly
affect the academic outcomes of a student in school.
Consequences for students include whether they pass or fail,
whether they qualify for a diploma, and/or whether they are granted
access to specific programs. The implications for high stakes testing
are further reaching, as the resulting consequences extend to teachers,
principals, schools, and school districts. Consequences for schools and
districts include which ones receive awards for high performance and
which ones are granted additional funding to try to improve low scores.
For low-scoring schools, consequences include loss of accreditation,
reconstitution, or closure.
THE ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL
One can easily see that the role of the principal has changed given
today's high stakes accountability. The public expects principals
to deliver results; however, such high stakes testing and the resulting
accountability add intense stress to a principal's workload.
Cohen (2001) noted that the operational demands that principals
have always faced school safety, keeping the buses running on schedule,
contending with mounds of paperwork, disciplining students, mediating
adult interrelationships, handling central office requests and
requirements, etc.--have not gone away. However, the principal also
needs special capabilities for leadership in order to be an
instructional leader: recruiting teachers loyal to the common task of
teaching a specific group of children, knowing individual teachers well
enough to suggest specific improvements, and creating a culture in which
deep knowledge of instruction and learning serves as the foundation for
an interdependent professional community (Fink & Resnick, 2001).
Principals currently are held accountable for the progress of their
students, yet most principals spend relatively little time in classrooms
and even less time analyzing instruction with teachers (Fink and
Resnick, 2001). Principals increasingly indicate that these jobs are
simply not doable (Institute for Educational Leadership, 2002). Among
many professional development needs, perhaps none is more critical in
the high stakes accountability environment than the need to understand
and analyze data in order to align assessments, standards, curriculum,
and instruction (Bennett, 2002).
Principals must be able to make the appropriate data-driven
decisions and know how to prioritize among many daily challenges. This
notion is validated by Lipsitz, Mizell, Jackson, and Austin (1997), who
maintain that data-driven decision making is a necessary element of
reform. Not only must the principal understand and engage in data-driven
decision making, but the stakeholders must also be involved in these
decisions. Distributed leadership and decision sharing make the
principal's job both more manageable and more complex (Cohen,
2001). When principals engage parents and teachers in the
decision-making process, they are employing a strategy for arriving at
better decisions. In the past, school accountability was much less
complicated and less public. If principals determined the needs of their
specific learning communities and met them, this approach was feasible.
However, in a learning community driven by high stakes testing, it is
not. In a high stakes accountability environment, comparisons of scores
to other schools are inevitable and test-driven decisions have a ripple
effect on the community. Accountability must be shared among all
participants because far-ranging results depend on cooperation and
collaboration (Bennett, 2002, p.4).
Not only are principals expected to engage parents and teachers in
the decision-making process, but principals are also expected to take
the lead in engaging other citizens in supporting student achievement
and school improvement (Cohen, 2001). Education leaders are encouraged
by Lefkowits and Miller (2003) to find time to effectively reach out to
the public, engage them in school reform efforts, and respond to the
concerns expressed, or they run the risk of having their accountability
policies become irrelevant to the very people the policies are intended
to reassure. In the high stakes accountability environment, school
principals must simultaneously visualize the future of the learning
community while meeting the adjustment needs of those they lead
(Bennett, 2002, p.4). The Institute for Educational Leadership's
(IEL) Task Force on the Principalship (2000) verified the notion,
Being an effective building manager used to be good enough. For the
past century, principals mostly were expected to comply with
district-level edicts, address personnel issues, order supplies, balance
program budgets, keep hallways and playgrounds safe, put out fires that
threatened tranquil public relations, and make sure that busing and meal
services were operating smoothly. And [sic] principals still need to do
all those things. But [sic] now they must do more. (p.2)
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study solicited principals' perceptions of their
desirability for professional development as it related to the high
stakes accountability in terms of current legislation. This study was
designed to address the following specific questions:
1) How do principals rate their desirability for professional
development as it relates to meeting the high stakes accountability of
the No Child Left Behind Act?
2) Do the following factors affect principals' perceptions of
their desirability for professional development: experience level of the
principal, level of school (elementary, middle or high school), the
percentage of minority children, the percentage of children with
disabilities, the percentage of children with limited English
proficiency, the percentage of children in poverty within the
school's population, the school's current Title 1 funding
status, and the school's current AYP accreditation?
3) How do principals rank their desirability for professional
development as it relates to meeting the high stakes accountability of
the No Child Left Behind Act?
The population for this study was composed of Virginia principals
randomly selected from school divisions. A letter along with the
principal survey was sent to all school divisions within Virginia asking
for the Superintendents' permission to distribute surveys to
principals within their school divisions. The population for this study
was drawn from 67 school divisions upon permission from those
Superintendents. Using a stratified random numbers table, a sample size
of 30% was taken from 332 elementary, 114 middle, and 112 high schools
within the Commonwealth of Virginia so that surveys were randomly
selected and sent to 100 elementary schools, 34 middle schools and 34
high schools. Only those schools in participating divisions were in the
final sample.
Once all of the surveys were returned, they were examined for
completion. Various descriptive and demographic data were collected
about the principals and their schools. A total of 102 surveys were
returned; 52 surveys were returned from elementary schools, 25 surveys
were returned from middle schools, and 25 surveys were returned from
high schools. The overall response rate was 62.2%. Inadequate surveys
were eliminated.
Quantitative statistical methods were used to answer Section A
demographic questions 18. Descriptive statistics including frequencies,
percentages, means, and standard deviations were utilized. In Section B,
survey questions 9-28 asked principals to rate their desirability for
the 20 statements of professional development as it relates to the high
stakes accountability in meeting the No Child Left Behind Act. One-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with a post-hoc t-test to
determine differences between groups if the one-way analysis of variance
produced statistically significant F. In Section C, principals were
asked to rank their top 10 statements of professional development
desirability as it relates to the high stakes accountability in meeting
the No Child Left Behind Act. Statements were rank-ordered by means
utilizing descriptive statistics.
RESULTS
This study examined the perceptions of Virginia principals
concerning their desirability for professional development relating to
the current high stakes accountability legislation. The research
questions guiding this study include:
1) How do principals rate their desirability for professional
development as it relates to meeting the high stakes accountability of
the No Child Left Behind Act?
2) Do the following factors affect principals' perceptions of
their desirability for professional development: experience level of the
principal, level of school (elementary, middle or high school), the
percentage of minority children, the percentage of children with
disabilities, the percentage of children with limited English
proficiency, the percentage of children in poverty within the
school's population, the school's current Title 1 funding
status, and the school's current AYP accreditation?
3) How do principals rank their desirability for professional
development as it relates to meeting the high stakes accountability of
the No Child Left Behind Act?
To answer these questions, a survey was developed, based upon
twenty desirability statements as supported by research for principal
professional development training.
DEMOGRAPHIC AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA
Various descriptive and demographic data were collected about the
principals and their schools. Using a stratified random numbers table, a
sample size of 30% was taken from the population. A total of 102 surveys
were returned; 52 surveys were returned from elementary schools, 25
surveys were returned from middle schools, and 25 surveys were returned
from high schools. The overall response rate was 62.2%. The data was
summarized using frequencies and percentages for the total number of
principals (102) responding to the survey. The missing data points were
also reported under the category of "No Response."
PRINCIPAL DESIRABILITY RATING
The survey consisted of twenty statements seeking principal
perceptions about desirability for professional development training.
These statements were referred to as Statements of Desirability.
Research Question 1
The first research question asked principals to assess their
desirability for professional development as it relates to meeting high
stakes accountability. Specifically, the statement read, "The
following indicates my level of desirability for professional
development training as it relates to: each of the twenty Statements of
Desirability." A Likert scale was provided, with a range of Strong
(1), Moderate (2), Little (3), and None (4). Surveys which were returned
with blank data were included in the "No Response" category.
The principals assessed their overall desirability for professional
development training in the twenty categories to be Strong to Moderate.
To further summarize the data, the number of principals with Strong
Desirability (response 1) and No Desirability (response 4) was again
aggregated and compared.
The data suggests desirability for principal professional
development training. The reader should note that there were only six
statements toward which one or more principals noted they had No
Desirability. Those statements were (1) redesigning my school in order
to increase my school's effectiveness, (2) providing core reading
knowledge to novice teachers who did not get this training in college,
(3) preparing for sudden increases in my student population as my
school's effectiveness increases, (4) raising the achievement
levels of minority students, (5) raising the achievement levels of
students living in poverty, and (6) raising the achievement levels of
new English learners (ESL).
The mean of each of the twenty Statements of Desirability was
calculated, and the statements were rank-ordered from the lowest mean
(greatest level of desirability) to the highest mean (lowest level of
desirability). The rank-ordered mean for each of these twenty-eight
Statements of Desirability was also calculated and reported in Table 10.
Those statements with the highest desirability (lowest mean) for
professional development training included ensuring teachers are trained
in research-based instructional methods and raising the achievement
levels of students with disabilities and students living in poverty.
Those statements with the lowest desirability (highest mean) for
professional development training included visualizing the future needs
of the school's learning community, redesigning the school in order
to increase the school's effectiveness, and preparing for sudden
increases in student population.
The reader should note that some means were so similar that there
may be limited practical differences between them. To further
differentiate, a Test of Relative Importance (Table 11) was calculated
based on desirability statement means using a one-sample t-test. The
Test of Relative Importance used the rank-ordered desirability
statements to find statements of the same level of importance relative
to each other.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, "Do the following factors affect
principals' perceptions of their desirability for professional
development: experience level of the principal, level of school
(elementary, middle or high school), the percentage of minority
children, the percentage of children with disabilities, the percentage
of children with limited English proficiency, the percentage of children
in poverty within the school's population, the school's
current Title 1 funding status, and the school's current AYP
accreditation?".
For Table 12, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to
determine if differences in principals' desirability concerning
professional development are related to the above noted demographic
characteristics. When differences among school levels were determined to
be statistically significant, the post-hoc Scheffe test was utilized to
determine differences between the sub-groups.
Research Question 2.1
Sub-question 2.1: Are differences in principals' desirability
concerning professional development related to the school level of the
principal?
For the purpose of this study, principal experience was divided
into three levels: Level 1 Elementary, Level 2--Middle School and Level
3--High School. The results are summarized in Table 12.
As observed in Table 12, the analysis of variance revealed six
factors that were statistically significant as a function of school
level:
* 1 Redesigning my school in order to increase my school's
effectiveness,
* 4 Providing core reading knowledge to novice teachers who did not
get this training in college,
* 5 Preparing for sudden increases in my student population as my
school's effectiveness increases,
* 10 Raising the achievement levels of students with disabilities,
* 11 Understanding data-driven decision making, and
* 20 Visualizing the future of my specific learning community while
meeting the adjustment needs of my community.
In order to determine where differences occurred between groups, a
post-hoc Scheffe test was utilized. The data is presented in Table 13.
As revealed in Table 13, differences were found among the
desirability levels:
1--Redesigning my school in order to increase my school's
effectiveness.
Differences existed between principals at the elementary and high
school levels with a significance found at the p = .020 level.
Principals at the elementary level indicated a stronger desirability for
professional development training in this area than did principals at
the high school level. There was no significance between elementary and
middle school levels or middle and high school levels.
4--Providing core reading knowledge to novice teachers who did not
get this training in college.
Post hoc testing showed no statistical significance.
5--Preparing for sudden increases in my student population as my
school's effectiveness increases.
Differences existed between elementary and middle school levels
with a significance found at the p = .016 level. Principals at the
elementary school level indicated stronger desirability for professional
development training in this area than at the high school level. There
was no significant difference between elementary and middle or middle
and high school level principals.
10--Raising the achievement levels of students with disabilities.
Differences existed between elementary and middle school levels
with a significance found at the p = .024 level. Principals at the
middle school level indicated stronger desirability for professional
development training in this area than at the elementary school level.
There was no significant difference between elementary and high or
middle and high school level principals.
11--Understanding data-driven decision making
Differences existed between middle and high school levels with a
significance found at the p = .50 level. Principals at the middle school
level indicated stronger desirability for professional development
training in this area than at the high school level. There was no
significant difference between elementary and middle or elementary and
high school level principals.
20--Visualizing the future of my specific learning community while
meeting the adjustment needs of my community
Differences existed between middle and high school levels with a
significance found at the p = .025 level. Principals at the middle
school level indicated stronger desirability for professional
development training in this area than at the high school level. There
was no significant difference between elementary and middle or middle
and high school level principals.
Research Question 2.2
Sub-question 2.2: Are differences in principals' desirability
concerning professional development related to the level of experience
as a principal?
In order to answer this question, an ANOVA was utilized. When
differences among school levels were determined to be statistically
significant, the post-hoc Scheffe test was utilized to determine
differences between the sub-groups. For the purpose of this study,
principal experience was divided into four levels: Level 1 = 1-5 years,
Level 2 = 6-10 years, Level 3 = 1120 years and Level 4 = 20+ years.
As indicated in Table 14, the analysis of variance revealed five
factors that were statistically significant as a function of school
level. Those factors were:
4--Providing core reading knowledge to novice teachers who did not
get this training in college,
7--Raising the achievement level of students of minority,
10--Raising the achievement levels of students with disabilities,
and
15 Coaching and guiding teachers in the continual improvement of
their educational knowledge and practice,
19--Engaging the school community in my school reform efforts.
In order to determine where differences occurred between groups, a
post-hoc Scheffe test was utilized. The data is presented in Table 15.
As presented in Table 15, differences were found among the
desirability levels:
4--Providing core reading knowledge to novice teachers who did not
get this training in college.
Differences existed between principals with 1-5 years of experience
and principals with 1120 years of experience. This was significant at
the .030 confidence level. Principals with 11-20 years of experience
indicated a stronger desirability for professional development training
in this area than did principals with 1-5 years of experience. There was
no significance between the other levels of experience in principals.
7--Raising the achievement levels of minority students.
Post hoc testing showed no statistical significance.
10--Raising the achievement level of students with disabilities.
Post hoc testing showed no statistical significance.
11--Understanding data-driven decision making.
Post hoc testing showed no statistical significance.
15--Coaching and guiding teachers in the continual improvement of
their educational knowledge and practice.
Differences existed between principals with 1-5 years of experience
and principals with 20+ years of experience. This was significant at the
.041 confidence level. Principals with 1-5 years of experience indicated
stronger desirability for professional development training in this area
than did those principals with 20+ years of experience. Differences were
also statistically significant between principals with 11-20 years of
experience and principals with 20+ years of experience. This was
significant at the .019 confidence level. Again, there was a stronger
desirability indicated from principals with 11-20 years of experience
than those principals with 20+ years of experience. There was no
statistical significance between the other levels of experience in
principals.
19--Engaging the public in my school reform efforts.
Differences existed between principals with 11-20 years of
experience and principals with 20+ years of experience. This was
significant at the .009 confidence level. Principals with 11-20 years of
experience indicated stronger desirability for professional development
training in this area than did those principals with 20+ years of
experience. There was no statistical significance between the other
levels of experience in principals.
Research Question 2.3
Sub-question 2.3: Are differences in principals' desirability
concerning professional development related to the percent of minority
children from the student population?
In order to answer this question, an ANOVA was utilized. When
differences among school levels were determined to be statistically
significant, the post-hoc Scheffe test was utilized to determine
differences between the sub-groups. For the purpose of this study,
school minority populations were divided into four levels: Level 1 =
0-25%, Level 2 = 26-49%, Level 3 = 50-74%, and Level 4 = 75-100%.
Post-hoc tests were not performed for raising minority and raising
disability because at least one group had too few cases.
Research Question 2.4
Sub-question 2.4: Are differences in principals' desirability
concerning professional development related to the percent of children
with IEPs from the student population?
In order to answer this question, an analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was utilized. When differences among school levels were determined to be
statistically significant, the post-hoc Scheffe test was utilized to
determine differences between the sub-groups. For the purpose of this
study, school IEP levels were divided into four levels: Level 1 = 0-25%
years, Level 2 = 2649% years, Level 3 = 50-74% years and Level 4 =
75-100% years.
As observed in Table 17, the analysis of variance revealed only one
statement which showed statistical significance:
11--Understanding data-driven decision making.
This statement showed statistical significance as a function of the
percent of children with IEPs from the total school population. The
Scheffe Post-hoc test could not be performed for 10 because at least one
group had too few cases.
Research Question 2.5
Sub-question 2.5: Are differences in principals' desirability
concerning professional development related to the percent of children
with limited English proficiency from the student population?
In order to answer this question, an ANOVA was utilized. When
differences among the percentage of children with limited English
proficiency were determined to be statistically significant, the
post-hoc Scheffe test was utilized to determine differences between the
subgroups. For the purpose of this study, the limited English
proficiency student population was divided into four levels: Level 1 =
0-25%, Level 2 = 26-49%, Level 3 = 50-74%, and Level 4 = 75-100%.
As observed in Table 18, the analysis of variance revealed that the
following statement had statistical significance:
3--Ensuring that my teachers are trained in research-based
instructional methods.
This statement was statistically significant as a function of the
percent of children with limited English proficiency from the total
school population. The Scheffe Post-hoc test could not be performed for
3 because at least one group had fewer than two cases.
Research Question 2.6
Sub-question 2.6: Are differences in principals' desirability
concerning professional development related to the percentage of
impoverished children from the student population?
In order to answer this question, an analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was utilized. When differences among the percentage of impoverished
children were determined to be statistically significant, the post-hoc
Scheffe test was utilized to determine differences between the
subgroups. For the purpose of this study, the percentage of impoverished
children were divided into four levels: Level 1 = 0-25%, Level 2 =
26-49%, Level 3 = 50-74%, and Level 4 = 75-100%.
As presented in Table 19, the analysis of variance revealed four
factors which were found to be statistically significant as a function
of the percent of impoverished children from the total school's
population. Those factors were:
1--Redesigning my school in order to increase my school's
effectiveness,
7--Raising the achievement levels of minority students,
9--Raising the achievement levels of new English learners,
10--Raising the achievement levels of students with disabilities.
In order to determine where differences occurred between groups, a
post-hoc Scheffe test was utilized. The data is presented in Table 20.
As revealed in Table 20, differences were found among the following
desirability levels:
1--Redesigning my school in order to increase my school's
effectiveness.
Differences existed between groups reporting between 0-25%
impoverished children and 75-100% impoverished children. This was
significant at the .017 confidence level. Principals from schools with
75-100% impoverished children indicated a significantly stronger
desirability for professional development training in statement 1 than
principals with 0-25% impoverished children. Additionally, differences
were attributed to groups reporting between 26-49% impoverished children
and 75-100% impoverished children. This was significant at the .008
confidence level. Principals from schools with 75-100% impoverished
children again showed stronger desirability than principals with 26-49%
impoverished children. There was no statistical significance between the
other levels of schools.
7--Raising the achievement levels of minority students.
Differences existed between groups reporting 75-100% impoverished
children and every other impoverished children population level.
Statistical significance was found between 75100% impoverished children
and 0-25% impoverished children at the .000 confidence level.
Statistical significance was found between 75-100% impoverished children
and 26-49% impoverished children at the .001 confidence level.
Statistical significance was found between 75-100% impoverished children
and 50-74% impoverished children at the .000 confidence level.
Consistently, principals from schools with 75-100% impoverished children
indicated a lower desirability for professional development training.
9--Raising the achievement levels of new English learners.
Differences existed between groups reporting populations composed
of 75-100% impoverished children and those reporting populations
composed of 0-25% impoverished children. Statistical significance was
found at the .029 confidence level. Principals from schools with 0-25%
impoverished children indicated a stronger desirability for professional
development to raise the achievement levels of new English learners than
the other poverty population levels. There was no statistical
significance between the other levels of schools.
10--Raising the achievement levels of students with disabilities.
Differences existed between groups reporting populations composed
of 75-100% impoverished children and those reporting populations
composed of 26-49% impoverished children as well as those reporting a
50-74% impoverished population. Statistical significance was found at
the .006 confidence level between 26-49% and 75-100%.
Statistical significance was found at the .001 confidence level
between 50-74% and 75100%. Principals from schools with 26-49% and
50-74% impoverished children indicated a stronger desirability than
other impoverished population levels. There was no statistical
significance between the other levels of schools.
Research Question 2.7
Sub-question 2.7: Are differences in principals' desirability
concerning professional development related to the school's current
Title 1 Status?
In order to answer this question, an ANOVA was utilized. When
differences among the percentage of children with limited English
proficiency was determined to be statistically significant, the post-hoc
Scheffe test was utilized to determine differences between the
subgroups. For the purpose of this study, Title 1 Status levels were
divided into three levels: Level 1 --Schoolwide Title 1 funding, Level
2--Title 1 funding, Level 3--No Title 1 funding.
As observed in Table 21, the analysis of variance revealed four
factors that were statistically significant as a function of Title 1
status. Those factors were:
7--Raising the achievement levels of minority students,
12--Guiding my learning community through the changes in attitude
and behavior that high stakes accountability environment demands,
15--Coaching and guiding teachers in the continual improvement of
their educational knowledge and practice, and
17--Understanding and analyzing data in order to align assessment,
standards, curriculum, and instruction.
In order to determine where differences occurred between groups, a
post-hoc Scheffe test was utilized. The data is presented in Table 22.
As revealed in Table 22, differences were found among the following
desirability levels:
7--Raising achievement levels of minority students.
Differences existed between groups receiving Title 1 funding and
those receiving no Title 1 funding. Statistical significance was found
at the .042 confidence level with principals that receive no funding
indicating a stronger desirability for professional development training
in this area. There was no statistical significance between the other
funding levels.
12--Guiding my learning community through the changes in attitude
and behavior that high stakes accountability environment demands.
Statistical significance was found at the p = .002 level between
principals receiving Schoolwide Title 1 funding and principals who
receive only Title 1 funding. Principals from schools receiving
Schoolwide Title 1 funding showed stronger desirability for professional
development training than schools only receiving funding. There was no
statistical significance between the other funding levels.
Research Question 2.8
Sub-question 2.8: Are differences in principals' desirability
concerning professional development related to the school's current
status in meeting AYP?
In order to answer this question, an ANOVA was utilized. When
differences among the percentage of children with limited English
proficiency was determined to be statistically significant, the post-hoc
Scheffe test was utilized to determine differences between the
subgroups. For the purpose of this study, Title 1 Status levels were
divided into four levels: Level 1 --Fully Accredited, Level
2--Accredited with Warning, Level 3--Accreditation Denied, and Level
4--Conditionally Accredited.
As observed in Table 23, the analysis of variance revealed the
following as statistically significant:
10--Raising the achievement levels of students with disabilities.
In order to determine where differences occurred between groups, a
post-hoc Scheffe test was utilized. There was no statistical
significance within groups for current accreditation status. This means
that differences could not be attributed to groups based on a pair-wise
comparison. The relationships between the levels of the variables is too
complex to be analyzed by the Scheffe test.
Research Question 3
How do principals rank their desirability for professional
development as it relates to meeting the high stakes accountability of
No Child Left Behind Act?
Each of the twenty desirability statements were rank-ordered from
the highest mean desirability preference to lowest mean desirability
preference. Those statements rated with the highest desirability
concerned principal desirability to raise the achievement scores of
students with disabilities and students living in poverty, as well as
principal desirability to ensure that teachers are trained in
research-based curriculum.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
As previously discussed, principals today are held accountable for
ensuring that all groups of students--economically disadvantaged, racial
or ethnic minorities, students with disabilities, and English language
learners--make state-defined "annual yearly progress" targets
(Anthes, 2002). However, according to Thune (1997), principals are being
forced to operate educational programs under a growing number of federal
and state mandates with limited knowledge and available resources.
This study's primary purpose was to investigate the
perceptions of Virginia principals regarding their desirability for
professional development as it relates to the high stakes
accountability. This study revealed important information about
principals' professional development desires for training in order
to better meet current federal and state accountability mandates. In
fourteen of the twenty statements of desirability, principals indicated
some level of desirability toward professional development training.
Overall, the principals clearly assessed their desirability for
professional development training to be moderate to high.
Professional Development Preferences
The three statements in which principals had the greatest desire
for training both in Section A (rating of desirability) and Section C
(ranking of desirability) were: #3--Ensuring that my teachers are
trained in research-based instructional methods, #10--Raising the
achievement levels of students with disabilities, and #8--Raising the
achievement levels of students living in poverty. The fact that these
three categories matched in both rating of desirability and ranking of
desirability for professional development clearly shows that these three
topics are essential components in any principal professional
development program.
That principals desire more professional development in such
categories is not surprising. The growing focus on testing requires that
principals have teachers within their buildings who are trained in
research-based instructional methods. The NCLB Act recognizes the use of
proven, research-based instructional methods as one factor which makes a
difference in providing children with a quality education, for, as the
Act states, "Teachers must be equipped with the most current,
research-based instructional tools to help them do their job" (U.S.
Department of Education, 2007). A primary focus of this law is the
requirement that school districts and individual schools use effective
research-based remediation programs (Wright & Wright, 2007). This is
consistent with the findings of this study, in which 77% of Virginia
principals responded with a strong desirability for professional
development in ensuring that teachers are trained in research-based
curricula. Consequently, Virginia school leaders who hire inadequately
prepared teachers must be ready to provide in-service professional
development targeted for specific research-based curricula,
instructional methods, and programs.
The Institute for Educational Leadership (2000) includes working
with teachers to strengthen their teaching skills as being a crucial
role principals can play in improving teaching and learning. Principals
must understand the instructional programs of their school divisions
well enough to effectively guide teachers. Awareness of the school and
teacher practices that impact student achievement is critical, but
without effective leadership, there is less of a possibility that
schools and districts will address these variables in a coherent and
meaningful way (Miller, 2003).
Raising the achievement levels of students living in poverty is
notably an area of strong desirability for professional development for
Virginia principals in this study. According to Secretary Margaret
Spellings of the U.S. Department of Education (2007), "We must
reward teachers and principals who make the greatest progress in
improving student performance and closing the achievement gap. This is
especially important in high-poverty schools, where students are less
likely to be taught by a credentialed teacher" (p. 8). In this
study, principals responded with the same type of desirability for
increasing student performance for children in poverty as Secretary
Margaret Spellings. Gerstl-Pepin (2006) stated, "An equal society
begins with equally excellent schools, but we know our schools today are
not equal" (p. 143). Poverty is considered to be an important
factor in school failure (Rothstein, 2004). Principals in this survey
rank-ordered raising the achievement levels of students living in
poverty as the third highest professional development priority.
Additionally, 78% of Virginia principals surveyed noted a strong
desirability for professional development in raising achievement levels
of students living in poverty, which supports the assertion that
principals understand the significance of this NCLB subgroup of
students. The principal must investigate how economic inequities might
be hindering student success and shaping their students' lives
(Gerstl-Pepin, 2006). Therefore, professional development workshops on
the culture of poverty must be provided to assist principals in
increasing student success in spite of such economic imbalance. As one
teacher noted after participating in workshops on poverty, "It
helped me realize that our school was operating through a middle-class
lens and that our kids didn't necessarily recognize that lens"
(Gerstl-Pepin, 2006, p. 151).
Raising the achievement levels of students with disabilities was
noted by 71% of the principals surveyed as being an area of importance
for professional development. Additionally, raising the achievement
levels of students with disabilities was rank-ordered as having the
highest level of desirability for professional development. Such
findings from the survey are consistent with the fact that "across
the country, students with disabilities have made progress on state
assessment, however, many schools are not making Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) because of the overall academic performance of the
special education subgroup measured against the set standard established
by each state for all of its students" (Cole, 2006, p. 1).
While the expectation of any building level principal is that the
building leader must be ready to face the daily challenges specific to
special education programming, the principal is not equally expected to
receive ongoing training and preparation in special education and
knowledge in order to meet this requirement. Thus, there is a basic lack
of training which predicates a lack of continued professional
development in this area.
Thune (1997) states that it is critical for a school system to
employ principals who have a basic knowledge and understanding of
special education in order to meet the federal and state audits for
special education. McLaughlin and Nolet (2004) note that it is critical
for a building principal to act as a school leader by creating effective
special education services for students. Every school principal need to
understand the foundations of effective special education in
today's climate of high standards and high stakes accountability.
Since current mandates assure that the programs and services for
children with disabilities are in absolute compliance with the law,
building principals absolutely must be knowledgeable and prepared to
supervise the array of special education services within their schools
and to make decisions regarding best practices. Students with
disabilities now have access to the same curriculum and high standards
as all students. With such access comes the responsibility by principals
to ensure that students with disabilities continue to experience an
increase in achievement levels.
While principals suggested strong desirability for professional
development in the above noted areas, the desirability statements that
principals least desired are equally interesting. When principals were
asked to rank twenty desirability statements, they rated visualizing the
future of their specific learning community while meeting the adjustment
needs of their community, redesigning their school in order to increase
their school's effectiveness, and preparing for sudden increases in
student population as their schools' effectiveness increases as
being the least desirable fields for professional development. As all
three statements speak to professional learning communities, the fact
that principals ranked these as having little desirability is
noteworthy. Interestingly, DuFour (2001) contended that while educators
are not typically against creating a professional learning community,
they may not know where to begin given all the demands on them. He
contended that to create a professional learning community, tone must
focus on learning rather than teaching (2004), yet this is in direct
conflict with NCLB which places its thrust of impact on ensuring that
teachers meet "highly qualified" standards in the content
areas they are assigned to teach. Teachers are responsible for the gains
made by their students and must focus their efforts on perfecting their
teaching skills. Professional learning communities require that every
professional within the school must work with their colleagues to ensure
that students learn, to achieve a culture of collaboration, and to judge
their effectiveness on the basis of student achievement results (DuFour,
2004). There is solid research to support that the concepts found within
professional learning communities should drive school districts today
(DuFour, 2003). Professional learning communities have been shown to
have positive influence on student achievement (Dufour, 2001). The
results from this study support further investigation into why
principals noted such non-desirability for professional development in
this area.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIFFERENCES
Professional desirability differences were found among principals
based on their experience levels. Overall, principals with 11-20 years
of experience demonstrated a stronger desire for professional
development than less veteran principals or principals having 20+ years
of experience. Interestingly enough, research often tends to focus on
the novice principal rather than the veteran principal as needing
professional development. In fact, research often supports a more
veteran principal, such as those principals having 11-20 years of
building experience, serving as mentor principals and offering to mold
prospective principals (Fleck, 2008). However, consistent with these
findings are current accountability demands, which challenge principals
to succeed and sustain longevity in their positions(Fleck, 2008), and
principals beyond the beginner phase still demonstrate a desirability
for professional development. Hence, every Virginia school district
should remain committed to continued professional growth opportunities
for principals at all experience levels.
Professional desirability differences were found by principals
based on their percentages of impoverished children within their total
school population. Principals reporting groups of 75-100% impoverished
children reflected a stronger desirability for professional development
in order to redesign their schools to increase their schools'
effectiveness, raising the achievement levels of students with English
as second language, and raising the achievement levels of students with
disabilities. This supports the assertion made by Brooks (2004) that
economic factors are critical to understanding achievement inequalities.
Although the public system alone is often held responsible for
achievement gaps between children living in poverty and children from
affluent families (Gerstl-Pepin, 2006), these findings support that
principals are looking at "the bigger picture" to acknowledge
this group of children and focus on professional development that will
support them in closing such achievement gaps. School districts should
focus on professional development for principals which will enhance
understanding of economic inequities and their impact to student
achievement.
Professional desirability differences were found between principals
receiving Title 1 funding and those principals either receiving
Schoolwide Title 1 funding or not receiving Title 1 funding at all.
Title 1 funding influences principal desirability for professional
development because funding is a significant issue when addressing local
responsibility under NCLB and the subsequently ever-increasing demands
placed on schools. A 2006 report from the Center on Education Policy
(American Teacher, 2006) warned that for schools struggling to meet
higher AYP targets, "funds provided by NCLB to help.. .are often
simply not there" (p. 6). In order for principals to be able to
meet ongoing and increasing accountability demands, Congress must look
at funding bills which will stabilize the underfunding and cuts in
funding of Title 1 funds.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Even though desirability statements were rank-ordered based on
their mean, a comparison of the means was conducted to determine
clusters of relative importance. Six clusters were identified and should
provide practical significance when leaders consider implementing
desirability preferences into professional development practices.
Practically speaking, when considering professional development, the
first three desirability statements were found to have equal importance.
Hence, principals' greatest levels of desirability reveal that
professional development should focus on the following cluster of
professional topics, rather than just the highest rank-ordered statement
of desirability: Ensuring that teachers are trained in research-based
instructional methods, raising the achievement levels of students with
disabilities, and raising the achievement levels of students living in
poverty.
This has implications for school divisions and professional
organizations when determining funding for professional development
workshops. Practically speaking, rather than funding professional
development for one single area of desirability, funding should be
offered to the highest ranked cluster of principal desirability for
professional development. Additionally, this study suggests that
whenever possible, teachers should be trained in research-based
instructional methods, professional development workshops on poverty
should be provided to assist principals in increasing student success in
spite of economic imbalance, educational leaders should examine current
research-based instructional methods and content taught at the college
level to determine if college course requirements should increase or
incorporate a stronger emphasis specific to research-based instructional
methods, and that educational leaders should ensure that professional
development training programs for principals are designed and available
which focus on raising the achievement levels of students with
disabilities and minority students.
Further research might be considered to determine if differences in
principals' desirability for professional development training
exist based on the school's level of funding received for
professional development training, the professional development training
principals receive within their district, the perceived support
principals receive from Central Office Administration, or
principals' demographic location (e.g. urban, suburban, rural).
Furthermore, does the principals' previous training, experiences,
or level of education influence their desirability for professional
development training? What other factors might principals suggest as
having a strong influence on student academic achievement? What other
factors might principals suggest as having a strong desirability for
professional development training? Finally, future research might
consider why statistically significant differences in principals'
desirability exist as related to their school level, years of
experience, percentage of impoverished children in the total school
population, and current Title 1 status.
REFERENCES
Albrecht, S.E., & Joles, C. (2003). Accountability and access
to opportunity: mutually exclusive tenets under a highstakes testing
mandate. Preventing School Failure, 47(2), 86-91.
Allington,R.L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1995). Individualized
planning. In M.C.Wang, M.C. Reynolds, & H.J. Walberg. (Eds.),
Handbook of special and remedial education: Research and practice (2nd
ed.). Great Britain: BPC Wheatons Ltd.
Anthes, K. (2002). School and district leadership. No child left
behind policy brief. (Report No. ECS-GP-02-02). Denver, CO: Education
Commission of the States. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
EA031877).
Bennett, A. (2002). Critical Issue: Guiding principals-Addressing
accountability challenges. North Central Regional Education Laboratory.
Retrieved October 8, 2005 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/
issues/educatrs/leadrship/le600.htm
Cohen,G.S. (2001, February). The school leadership challenge
[Electronic Version]. Strategies,8. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from
http://www.aasa.org/publications/strategies/index.htm
Cuban, L. (2004). Looking through the rearview mirror at school
accountability. In K.A. Sirotnik (Eds.), Holding accountability
accountable: What ought to matter in public education. (pp. 1-34). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Fink, E. & Resnick, L. (April 2001). Developing principals as
instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan 82(8), 598.
Gerstl-Pepin, C.I. (2006). The paradox of poverty narratives:
Educators struggling with children left behind. Educational Policy
20(1), 143-162. Retrieved March 2, 2008 from http://epx.sagepub.com.
Heath, S. (2006). No child left behind act: What teachers,
principals & school administrators need to know. Wrightslaw.
Retrieved April 4, 2006 from
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/nclb.teachers.admins.pdf
Institute for Educational Leadership (2000, October). Leadership
for student learning: Reinventing the principalship [Electronic
Version]. A Report on the Tack Force on the Principalship. Retrieved
March 23, 2006, from www.iel.org
Lashway, L. (2000), Leading with Vision, ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Management, Eugene, Oregon.
Lewis, A. (2000). High-stakes testing: Trends and issues.
Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved October 24,
2005, from http://www.mcrel.org/topics/productDetail.asp?productID=85
Lipsitz, J., Mizell, M.H., Jackson, A.W., & Austin, L.M.
(1997). Speaking with one voice: A manifesto for middlegrades reform.
Phi Delta Kappan 18, 533-540.
Miller, K. (November, 2003). School, teacher, leadership impacts on
student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
Retrieved April 24, 2006, from http://www.mcrel.org
Moe, T.M. (2003). Politics, control, and the future of school
accountability. In P.E. Peterson & M.R. West (Eds.), No child left
behind? The politics and practice of school accountability. Washington,
D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Paige, R. (2002, June). Key policy letters signed by the education
secretary or deputy secretary. Retrieved October 2, 2005, from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/020614.html
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic,
and educational reform to close the Black-White achievement gap.
Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Simpson, R.L., LaCava, P.G., & Graner, P.S. (2004). The No
Child Left Behind Act: challenges and implications for educators.
Intervention in School & Clinic, 40(2), 67-73.
Sirotnik, K.A (2004). Conclusion: Holding accountability
accountable-Hope for the future? In K.A. Sirotnik (Eds.), Holding
accountability accountable: What ought to matter in public education.
(pp. 148-169). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Thune, G.R. (1997). Was that a red flag? The School Administrator,
54 (10), 12-15.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). No Child Left Behind
Executive Summary Archived Information. Retrieved February 17, 2008,
from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html
U.S. Department of Education (2007). Building on results: A
blueprint for strengthening the no child left behind act. Retrieved
March 3, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/nclb/buildingonresults.pdf
Wright, P.W.D., & Wright, P. (2007). Research-based
instruction. Wrightslaw. Retrieved March 3, 2008 from
http://www.wrightslaw.com/nclb/rbi.htm
Deanna L. Keith, Liberty University
Even as communities shine a public spotlight on principals when
their schools' test scores are released and prescribe stiff
penalties for many when their schools perform below expectations,
current principals find very little in their professional
preparation or ongoing professional development that equip them for
this new role. Nor are they supported in this leadership role by
their school districts, which, for decades, have expected
principals to do little more than follow orders, oversee school
staff and contain conflict. So instead, principals mainly stick
with what they know, struggling to juggle the multiplying demands
of running a school in a sea of rising expectations, complex
student needs, enhanced accountability, expanding diversity, record
enrollments and staff shortfalls. In short, the demands placed on
principals have changed, but the profession has not changed to meet
those demands. (p.2-3)
Table 1: Principals' School Levels
Elementary Middle High
Frequency 52 25 25
Percent 51.0% 24.5% 24.5%
Table 2: Level of Experience as a Principal
1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years 20+ years
Frequency 54 26 17 5
Percent 52.9% 25.5% 16.7% 4.9%
Table 3: Minority Children
0-25% 26-49% 50-74% 75-100% No Response
Frequency 75 19 7 0 1
Percent 73.5% 18.6% 6.9% 0% 1.0%
Table 4: Children with IEPs
0-25% 26-49% 50-74% 75-100% No Response
Frequency 91 6 4 0 1
Percent 89.2% 5.9% 3.9% 0% 1.0%
Table 5: Children with Limited English Proficiency
0-25% 26-49% 50-74% 75-100%
Frequency 96 6 0 0
Percent 94.1% 5.9% 0% 0%
Table 6: Children in Poverty
0-25% 26-49% 50-74% 75-100%
Frequency 41 37 17 7
Percent 40.2% 36.3% 16.7% 6.9%
Table 7 Title 1 Status
Schoolwide
Title Title 1 No Title 1
Funding Funding Funding No Response
Frequency 17 34 48 3
Percent 16.7% 33.3% 47.1% 2.9%
Table 8: School's Current Accreditation Status
Fully Accredited Accreditation Conditionally
Accredited With Warning Denied Accredited
Frequency 88 10 2 2
Percent 86.3% 9.8% 2.0% 2.0%
Table 9: Statements of Desirability
Redesigning my school in order to increase my school's effectiveness
Implementing research-based curricula
Ensuring that my teachers are trained in research- based instructional
methods
Providing core reading knowledge to novice teachers who did not get
this training in college
Preparing for sudden increases in my student population as my school's
effectiveness increases
Juggling the demands of running a school in a sea of rising
expectations, complex student needs, enhance accountability,
expanding diversity, record enrollments and staff shortfalls
Raising the achievement levels of minority students
Raising the achievement levels of students living in poverty
Raising the achievement levels of new English learners (ESL)
Raising the achievement levels of students with disabilities
Understanding data-driven decision making
Guiding my learning community through the changes in attitude and
behavior that high stakes accountability environment demands
Designing curriculum that meets the learning needs of all students and
is aligned with state and local standards
Knowing what constitutes good instructional practice
Coaching and guiding teachers in the continual improvement of their
educational knowledge and practice
Understanding the foundations of effective special education
Understanding and analyzing data in order to align assessment,
standards, curriculum, and instruction
Understanding how to interpret research findings and evaluate data
Engaging the school community in my school reform efforts
Visualizing the future of my specific learning community while meeting
the adjustment needs of my community
Table 10: Rank-Ordered Statements by Level of Desirability Means
Rank
Order Statement # Statement Mean
1st 3 Ensuring that my teachers are trained in 1.26
research-based instructional methods
2nd 10 Raising the achievement levels of 1.30
students with disabilities
3rd 8 Raising the achievement levels of 1.32
students living in poverty
4th 15 Coaching and guiding teachers in the 1.37
continual improvement of their
educational knowledge and practice
5th 2 Implementing research-based curricula 1.47
6th 14 Knowing what constitutes good 1.48
instructional practice
7th 16 Understanding the foundations of 1.48
effective special education
8th 4 Providing core reading knowledge to 1.51
novice teachers who did not get this
training in college
9th 13 Designing curriculum that meets the 1.58
learning needs of all students and is
aligned with state and local standards
10th 7 Raising the achievement levels of 1.59
minority students
11th 17 Understanding and analyzing data in 1.63
order to align assessment, standards,
curriculum, and instruction.
12th 12 Guiding my learning community through 1.64
the changes and attitude and behavior
that high stakes accountability
environment demands
13th 11 Understanding data-driven decision 1.71
making
14th 18 Understanding how to interpret research 1.73
findings and evaluate data
Juggling the demands of running a school
15th 6 in a sea of rising expectations, complex 1.75
student needs, enhanced accountability,
expanding diversity, record enrollment,
and staff shortfalls
16th 19 Engaging the school community in my 1.79
school reform efforts
17th 9 Raising the achievement levels of new 1.87
English learners
18th 20 Visualizing the future of my specific 1.90
learning community while meeting the
adjustment needs of my community
19th 1 Redesigning my school in order to 2.10
increase my school's effectiveness
20th 5 Preparing for sudden increases in my 2.31
student population as my school's
effectiveness increases
Table 11: Test of Relative Importance
Rank Statement Statement Mean
Order Number
Cluster of Relative Importance #1
1st 3 Ensuring that my teachers are trained in 1.26
research-based instructional methods
2nd 10 Raising the achievement levels of 1.30
students with disabilities
3rd 8 Raising the achievement levels of 1.32
students living in poverty
Cluster of Relative Importance #2
4th 15 Coaching and guiding teachers in the 1.37
continual improvement of their
educational knowledge and practice
5th 2 Implementing research-based curricula 1.47
6th 14 Knowing what constitutes good 1.48
instructional practice
7th 16 Understanding the foundations of 1.48
effective special education
Cluster of Relative Importance #3
8th 4 Providing core reading knowledge to 1.51
novice teachers who did not get this
training in college
9th 13 Designing curriculum that meets the 1.58
learning needs of all students and is
aligned with state and local standards
10th 7 Raising the achievement levels of 1.59
minority students
11th 17 Understanding and analyzing data in 1.63
order to align assessment, standards,
curriculum, and instruction.
Cluster of Relative Importance #4
12th 12 Guiding my learning community through 1.64
the changes and attitude and behavior
that high stakes accountability
environment demands
13th 11 Understanding data-driven decision 1.71
making
14th 18 Understanding how to interpret research 1.73
findings and evaluate data
15th 6 Juggling the demands of running a school 1.75
in a sea of rising expectations, complex
student needs, enhanced accountability,
expanding diversity, record enrollment,
and staff shortfalls
Cluster of Relative Importance #5
16th 19 Engaging the school community in my 1.79
school reform efforts
17th 9 Raising the achievement levels of new 1.87
English learners
18th 20 Visualizing the future of my specific 1.90
learning community while meeting the
adjustment needs of my community
Cluster of Relative Importance #6
19th 1 Redesigning my school in order to 2.10
increase my school's effectiveness
20th 5 Preparing for sudden increases in my 2.31
student population as my school's
effectiveness increases
Table 12: Differences in Principal Perceptions by School Level
(Elementary, Middle and High)
Standard
N Mean Deviation
1 Redesigning my school Elementary 52 1.94 .938
in order to increase Middle 25 1.96 .790
my school's High 25 2.56 .870
effectiveness
4 Providing core Elementary 52 1.42 .605
reading knowledge to Middle 25 1.40 .500
elementary teachers High 25 1.80 .866
who did not get this
training in college
5 Preparing for sudden Elementary 52 2.13 .841
increases in my Middle 25 2.28 .843
student population as High 25 2.72 .737
my school's
effectiveness
increases
10 Raising the Elementary 52 1.42 .499
achievement levels of Middle 25 1.12 .332
students with High 25 1.24 .436
disabilities
11 Understanding data- Elementary 52 1.73 .660
driven decision Middle 25 1.44 .651
making High 25 1.92 .759
Middle 25 1.32 .557
High 25 1.40 .500
20 Visualizing the Elementary 52 1.96 .791
future of my specific Middle 25 1.56 .583
learning community High 25 2.12 .666
while meeting the
adjustment needs of
my community
F-value Significance
1 Redesigning my school 4.491 .014 *
in order to increase
my school's
effectiveness
4 Providing core 3.244 .043 *
reading knowledge to
elementary teachers
who did not get this
training in college
5 Preparing for sudden 4.358 .015 *#
increases in my
student population as
my school's
effectiveness
increases
10 Raising the 4.196 .018 *#
achievement levels of
students with
disabilities
11 Understanding data- 3.154 .047 *#
driven decision
making
20 Visualizing the 4.193 .018 *#
future of my specific
learning community
while meeting the
adjustment needs of
my community
Note: Those with a bold asterisk have statistical
difference at the alpha of [less than or equal to] 0.05
Note: Have statistical difference at the alpha of
[less than or equal to] 0.05 are indicated with #.
Table 13: Post-Hoc Differences in Principal's Perceptions by School
Level
Comparisons by Mean
Statement School Level Difference Sig.
1 Redesigning my Elementary Middle -.018 .997
school in order High -.618 (*) .020 *#
to increase my Middle Elementary .018 .997
school's High -.600 .062
effectiveness High Elementary .618 (*) .020 *#
Middle .600 .062
5 Preparing for Elementary Middle -.145 .766
sudden increases High -.585 (*) .016 *#
in my student Middle Elementary .145 .766
population as my High -.440 .169
school's High Elementary .585 (*) .016 *#
effectiveness Middle .440 .169
increases
10 Raising the Elementary Middle .303 (*) .024 *#
achievement High .183 .249
levels of Middle Elementary -.303 (*) .024 *#
students with High -.120 .640
disabilities High Elementary -.183 .249
Middle .120 .640
11 Understanding Elementary Middle .291 .222
data-driven High -.189 .526
decision making Middle Elementary -.291 .222
High -.480 .050 *#
High Elementary .189 .526
Middle .480 .050 *#
20 Visualizing the Elementary Middle .402 .075
future of my High -.158 .662
specific Middle Elementary -.402 .075
learning High -.560 (*) .025 *#
community while High Elementary .158 .662
meeting the Middle .560 (*) .025 *#
adjustment needs
of my community
Note: Those with a bold asterisk have statistical difference
at the alpha of [less than or equal to] 0.05
Note: Have statistical difference at the alpha of
[less than or equal to] 0.05 are indicated with #.
Table 14: Differences in Principal Perceptions by Experience Level
(1-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-20 years, and 20+ years)
Standard
Years N Mean Dev
4 Providing core reading knowledge 1-5 54 1.67 .727
to novice teachers who did not get 6-10 26 1.50 .583
this training in college 11-20 17 1.12 .485
20+ 5 1.20 .447
7 Raising the achievement levels of 1-5 54 1.78 .904
minority students 6-10 26 1.46 .706
11-20 17 1.18 .529
20+ 5 1.60 .548
10 Raising the achievement levels of 1-5 54 1.41 .496
students with disabilities 6-10 26 1.15 .368
11-20 17 1.12 .332
20+ 5 1.60 .548
15 Coaching and guiding teachers in 1-5 54 1.31 .469
the continual improvement of their 6-10 26 1.50 .648
educational knowledge and practice 11-20 17 1.18 .393
20+ 5 2.00 .000
19 Engaging the school community in 1-5 54 1.76 .699
my school reform efforts 6-10 26 1.96 .720
11-20 17 1.41 .507
20+ 5 2.60 .548
F
value Sig
4 Providing core reading knowledge 3.520 .018 *#
to novice teachers who did not get
this training in college
7 Raising the achievement levels of 2.785 .045 *#
minority students
10 Raising the achievement levels of 3.694 .014 *#
students with disabilities
15 Coaching and guiding teachers in 4.278 .007 *#
the continual improvement of their
educational knowledge and practice
19 Engaging the school community in 4.829 .004 *#
my school reform efforts
Note: Those with a bold asterisk have statistical
difference at the alpha of [less than or equal to] 0.05
Note: Have statistical difference at the alpha of
[less than or equal to] 0.05 are indicated with #.
Table 15: Post-Hoc Differences in Principal's Perceptions
by Experience Level
Comparisons
by Years Mean
of Experience Difference Significance
4 Providing core 1-5 6-10 .167 .762
reading knowledge to 11-20 .549 (*) .030 *#
novice teachers who 20+ .467 .501
did not get this 6-10 1-5 -.167 .762
training in college 11-20 .382 .316
20+ .300 .825
11-20 1-5 -.549 (*) .030 *#
6-10 -.382 .316
20+ -.082 .996
20+ 1-5 -.467 .501
6-10 -.300 .825
11-20 .082 .996
15 Coaching and guiding 1-5 6-10 -.185 .498
teachers in the 11-20 .138 .805
continual improvement 20+ -.685 (*) .041 *#
of their educational 6-10 1-5 .185 .498
knowledge and 11-20 .324 .239
practice 20+ -.500 .250
11-20 1-5 -.138 .805
6-10 -.324 .239
20+ -.824 (*) .019 *#
20+ 1-5 .685 (*) .041 *#
6-10 .500 .250
11-20 .824 (*) .019 *#
19 Engaging the school 1-5 6-10 -.202 .662
community in my 11-20 .347 .331
school reform efforts 20+ -.841 .073
6-10 1-5 .202 .662
11-20 .550 .082
20+ -.638 .291
11-20 1-5 -.347 .331
6-10 -.550 .082
20+ -1.188 (*) .009 *#
20+ 1-5 .841 .073
6-10 .638 .291
11-20 1.188 (*) .009 *#
Note: Those with a bold asterisk have statistical
difference at the alpha of <0.05
Note: Have statistical difference at the alpha
of <0.05 are indicated with #.
Table 16
Differences in Principal Perceptions by Percent of Minority
Children from Total School's Population
(0-25%, 26-49%, 50-74%, and 75-100%)
% Standard
Population N Mean Deviation
7 Raising the achievement 0-25 75 1.73 .859
levels of minority students 26-49 19 1.26 .562
50-74 7 1.00 .000
10 Raising the achievement 0-25 75 1.36 .483
levels of students with 26-49 19 1.11 .315
disabilities 50-74 7 1.14 .378
F
value Significance
7 Raising the achievement 3.440 .020 *#
levels of minority students
10 Raising the achievement 2.708 .049 *#
levels of students with
disabilities
Note: Those with a bold asterisk have statistical
difference at the alpha of [less than or equal to] 0.05
Note: Have statistical difference at the alpha of
[less than or equal to] 0.05 are indicated with #.
Table 17
Differences in Principal Perceptions by Percent of Children
with IEPs from Total School's Population
(0-25%, 26-49%, 50-74%, and 75-100%)
% Standard
Population N Mean Deviation
11 Understanding data-driven 0-25 91 1.74 .697
decision making 26-49 6 1.50 .548
50-74 4 1.00 .000
F
value Significance
11 Understanding data-driven 2.897 .039 *#
decision making
Note: Those with a bold asterisk have statistical
difference at the alpha of [less than or equal to] 0.05
Note: Have statistical difference at the alpha of
[less than or equal to] 0.05 are indicated with #.
Table 18
Differences in Principal Perceptions by Percent of Children
with Limited English Proficiency from Total School's Population
(0-25%, 26-49%, 50-74%, and 75-100%)
% Limited Standard
English N Mean Deviation
3 Ensuring that my teachers 0-25 96 1.24 .453
are trained in research- 26-49 6 1.67 .816
based instructional methods
F Significance
3 Ensuring that my teachers 4.513 .036 *#
are trained in research-
based instructional methods
Note: Those with a bold asterisk have statistical
difference at the alpha of [less than or equal to] 0.05
Note: Have statistical difference at the alpha of
[less than or equal to] 0.05 are indicated with #.
Table 19
Differences in Principal Perceptions by Percent
of Impoverished children from Total School's Population
(0-25%, 26-49%, 50-74%, and 75-100%)
% Impoverished Standard
children N Mean Deviation
1 Redesigning my school in 0-25 41 2.17 .771
order to increase my 26-49 37 2.27 .902
school's effectiveness 50-74 17 2.00 1.173
75-100 7 1.00 .000
7 Raising the achievement 0-25 41 1.46 .636
levels of minority 26-49 37 1.59 .896
students 50-74 17 1.35 .702
75-100 7 2.86 .378
10 Raising the achievement 0-25 41 1.39 .494
levels of students with 26-49 37 1.22 .417
disabilities 50-74 17 1.06 .243
75-100 7 1.86 .378
F
value Significance
1 Redesigning my school in 4.314 .007 *#
order to increase my
school's effectiveness
7 Raising the achievement 7.796 .000 *#
levels of minority
students
10 Raising the achievement 6.879 .000 *#
levels of students with
disabilities
Note: Those with a bold asterisk have statistical
difference at the alpha of < 0.05
Note: Have statistical difference at the alpha
of < 0.05 are indicated with #.
Table 20:
Post-Hoc Differences as a Function of the Percent of Impoverished
children from the Total School's Population
Comparisons by
% Impoverished Mean
children Difference Significance
1 Redesigning my 0-25 26-49 -.100 .969
school to increase 50-74 .171 .928
my school's 75-100 1.171 (*) .017 *#
effectiveness 26-49 0-25 .100 .969
50-74 .270 .775
75-100 1.270 (*) .008 *#
50-74 0-25 -.171 .928
26-49 -.270 .775
75-100 1.000 .098
75-100 0-25 -1.171 (*) .017 *#
26-49 -1.270 (*) .008 *#
50-74 -1.000 .098
7 Raising the 0-25 26-49 -.131 .894
achievement levels 50-74 .110 .966
of minority 75-100 -1.394 (*) .000 *#
students 26-49 0-25 .131 .894
50-74 .242 .744
75-100 -1.263 (*) .001 *#
50-74 0-25 -.110 .966
26-49 -.242 .744
75-100 -1.504 (*) .000 *#
75-100 0-25 1.394 (*) .000 *#
26-49 1.263 (*) .001 *#
50-74 1.504 (*) .000 *#
9 Raising the 0-25 26-49 -.290 .604
achievement levels 50-74 -.023 1.000
of new English 75-100 -1.174 (*) .029 *#
learners (ESL) 26-49 0-25 .290 .604
50-74 .267 .815
75-100 -.884 .163
50-74 0-25 .023 1.000
26-49 -.267 .815
75-100 -1.151 .065
75-100 0-25 1.174 (*) .029 *#
26-49 .884 .163
50-74 1.151 .065
10 Raising the 0-25 26-49 .174 .361
achievement levels 50-74 .331 .071
of students with 75-100 -.467 .073
disabilities 26-49 0-25 -.174 .361
50-74 .157 .664
75-100 -.641 (*) .006 *#
50-74 0-25 -.331 .071
26-49 -.157 .664
75-100 -.798 (*) .001 *#
75-100 0-25 .467 .073
26-49 .641 (*) .006 *#
50-74 .798 (*) .001 *#
Note: Those with a bold asterisk have statistical difference
at the alpha of < 0.05
Note: Have statistical difference at the alpha of < 0.05
are indicated with #.
Table 21
Differences in Principal Perceptions by Current Title 1 Funding Status
(Schoolwide Funding, Title 1 Funding, and No Title 1 Funding)
Title 1 Standard
Funding N Mean Deviation
7 Raising the achievement Schoolwide 17 1.47 .624
levels of minority Title 1 34 1.91 .866
students None 48 1.40 .792
12 Guiding my learning Schoolwide 17 1.24 .437
community through the Title 1 34 1.88 .478
changes in attitude and None 48 1.60 .610
behavior that high stakes
accountability
environment demands
15 Coaching and guiding Schoolwide 17 1.12 .332
teachers in the continual Title 1 34 1.56 .504
improvement of their None 48 1.33 .559
educational knowledge and
practice
17 Understanding and Schoolwide 17 1.29 .470
analyzing data in order Title 1 34 1.88 .640
to align assessment, None 48 1.56 .649
standards, curriculum,
and instruction
F Significance
value
7 Raising the achievement 2.988 .035 *#
levels of minority
students
12 Guiding my learning 5.507 .002 *#
community through the
changes in attitude and
behavior that high stakes
accountability
environment demands
15 Coaching and guiding 3.029 .033 *#
teachers in the continual
improvement of their
educational knowledge and
practice
17 Understanding and 3.746 .014 *#
analyzing data in order
to align assessment,
standards, curriculum,
and instruction
Note: Those with a bold asterisk have statistical difference
at the alpha of < 0.05
Note: Have statistical difference at the alpha of < 0.05
are indicated with #.
Table 22
Post-Hoc Differences as a Function of the School's Current
Title 1 Funding Status
Comparisons by Mean
Title 1 Funding Difference Significance
7 Raising the Schoolwide Title 1 -.441 .322
achievement None .075 .990
levels of Title 1 Schoolwide .441 .322
minority None .516 (*) .042 *#
students None Schoolwide -.075 .990
Title 1 -.516 (*) .042 *#
12 Guiding my Schoolwide Title 1 -.647 (*) .002 *#
learning None -.369 .128
community Title 1 Schoolwide .647 (*) .002 *#
through the None .278 .162
changes in None Schoolwide .369 .128
attitude Title 1 -.278 .162
and
behavior
that high
stakes
account-
ability
environment
demands
Note: Those with a bold asterisk have statistical difference
at the alpha of < 0.05
Note: Have statistical difference at the alpha of < 0.05
are indicated with #.
Table 23: Differences in Principal Perceptions by Current
Accreditation Status
Accreditation Standard
Status N Mean Deviation
16 Understanding the Full 88 1.55 .585
foundations of effective Warning 10 1.10 .316
special education Denied 2 1.00 .000
Conditional 2 1.00 .000
20 Visualizing the future of Full 88 1.98 .742
my specific learning Warning 10 1.40 .516
community while meeting Denied 2 1.50 .707
the adjustment needs of Conditional 2 1.50 .707
my community
F
value Significance
16 Understanding the 2.917 .038 *#
foundations of effective
special education
20 Visualizing the future of 2.331 .079
my specific learning
community while meeting
the adjustment needs of
my community
Note: Those with a bold asterisk have statistical
difference at the alpha of < 0.05
Table 26: Rank-ordered by principals' top ten statements
of desirability
Rank Statement Statement Mean
Order Number
1st 10 Raising the achievement levels of students 5.72
with disabilities
2nd 3 Ensuring that my teachers are trained in 5.55
research-based instructional methods
3rd 8 Raising the achievement levels of students 4.86
living in poverty
4th 7 Raising the achievement levels of minority 4.06
students
5th 14 Knowing what constitutes good 3.36
instructional practice
6th 15 Coaching and guiding teachers in the 3.35
continual improvement of their educational
knowledge and practice
7th 2 Implementing research-based curricula 2.87
8th 4 Providing core reading knowledge to novice 2.77
teachers who did not get this training in
college
16 Understanding the foundations of effective 2.77
special education
9th 13 Designing curriculum that meets the 2.67
learning needs of all students and is
aligned with state and local standards
10th 11 Understanding data-driven decision making 2.51