Literature review

My original topic is the effects of leadership on student achievement and sustained school success,
especially in challenging, high-poverty schools.

The work begins with a brief overview of past research into school leadership in challenging contexts,
followed by a description of the core practices Leithwood and Riehl (2005) argue are necessary, but
insufficient, for student success in any context. These essential practices: setting direction, developing
people and redesigning the organisation, provide a framework for understanding the work of leaders in
successful high poverty schools.

Over the past several decades, a growing body of research on the work of school principals has made it
increasingly clear that leadership matters when it comes to improving student achievement (Fullan,
2001; Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005; Sergiovanni, 2001).

Efforts to improve educational leadership should build upon the foundation of well-documented and
well-accepted knowledge about school leadership that already exists. There are numerous research
studies on the nature and effects of leadership (e.g., Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1994) and on successful school
leadership in the literature (e.g. Hopkins, 2001). They revealed that school leadership is most successful
when it is focused on teaching and learning, and that it is necessary, though not sufficient, for school
improvement that leadership should take different forms in different contexts and should use various
mechanism through which schools leadership achieves its effects. The study which is presented might
facilitate better cross-national communication and exchange concerning understanding of successful
leadership and leadership strategies in effective schools in challenging urban environments. It might
provide a good starting point for dialogue with diverse audiences about the successful school leadership
in disadvantaged urban communities. Perhaps the key importance of the study lies in the fact that it
promotes sustainable development and tackles the future challenges for education and training systems
and lifelong learning.

In order to achieve successful outcomes in the face of high levels of student poverty, school leaders
must often confront significant challenges, such as poor nutrition, inadequate health services, high rates
of illiteracy, and criminal activities that include drug and substance abuse. In turn, teachers in such
schools often deal with high rates of student transience, absence and indiscipline. Maintaining
productive levels of instructional continuity when youngsters are frequently moving in and out of school
and disrupting classes is a major challenge at such sites. In other words, the external realities of a child’s
life create significant obstacles to his or her performing successfully relative to public expectations for
school outcomes. Interestingly, as far back as the Effective Schools Literature of the 1970s and 1980s,
and as recently as Smith’s 2008 book, Schools That Change, there is evidence of principals working in
high-poverty schools that have defied the odds; schools that produced levels of student achievement
that were markedly better than would have been predicted given the demographic characteristics of the
student body. These schools are statistical outliers when compared to the performance of others facing
similarly impoverished conditions (see for example Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Edmonds, 1979; Purkey
& Smith, 1983; or Smith, 2008). Making this interest in quality leadership even more compelling is the
fact that there is a growing concern that educational leadership is in relatively short supply in the U.S.
and many other parts of the world, especially for the type of challenging, high poverty schools being
examined (Jacobson, 2005).

Poland is undergoing social, economic, and political change because of and in response to global
economic competition, membership in the EU, migration and changing family structure, an ageing
population and growing social programme costs, among other reasons. In the contemporary Polish
environment, the range of knowledge and skills that effective school leaders need today is daunting:
curricular, pedagogical, student and adult learning in addition to managerial and financial skills, abilities
in group dynamics, interpersonal relations and communications. Polish Principals are being pulled in
many directions between management, leadership and accountability pressures. They not feel well
prepared to take on the challenges. However, the picture concerning the availability and quality of
training and professional development of school leaders across Poland is mixed. Poland now provide
school principals and senior staff with significantly more training, and support than they received in the
past. However, opportunities for school leaders in this area leave room for improvement. Moreover,
much preparation and professional development may not be effective in fitting school leaders to today‘s
challenges. This perspective suggests there is a need to focus on the range of leadership preparation and
development programmes to understand how they can contribute to improve school leadership.

Research conducted at the Center for Performance Assessment on the “90/90/90 Schools” has been
particularly instructive in the evaluation of the use of standards and assessment. The research includes
four years of test data (1995 through 1998) with students in a variety of school settings, from
elementary through high school. Our analysis considered data from more than 130,000 students in 228
buildings. The school locations included inner-city urban schools, suburban schools, and rural schools.
The student populations ranged from schools whose populations were overwhelmingly poor and/or
minority to schools that were largely Anglo and/or economically advantaged. Our research on the
90/90/90 Schools included both site visits and analyses of accountability data. The site visits allowed us
to conduct a categorical analysis of instructional practices. In the same manner that the authors of In
Search Of Excellence (Peters and Waterman, 1982) identified the common practices of excellent
organizations, we sought to identify the extent to which there was a common set of behaviors exhibited
by the leaders and teachers in schools with high achievement, high minority enrollment, and high
poverty levels. As a result, we found five characteristics that were common to all “90/90/90 Schools.”
These characteristics were:

• A focus on academic achievement

• Clear curriculum choices

• Frequent assessment of student progress and multiple opportunities for improvement

• An emphasis on nonfiction writing

• Collaborative scoring of student work

Many of the high-poverty schools included students whose skills were significantly below grade level in
academic achievement as they entered the school. The consistent message of the 90/90/90 Schools is
that the penalty for poor performance is not a low grade, followed by a forced march to the next unit.
Rather, student performance that is less than proficient is followed by multiple opportunities to improve
performance. Most of these schools conducted weekly assessments of student progress. It is
importantto note that these assessments were not district or state tests, but were assessments
constructed and administered by classroom teachers. The consequence of students performing badly
was not an admonishment to “Wait until next year” but rather the promise that “You can do better next
week.”

Children who live in poverty often attend the lowest performing schools. State and national assessments
consistently show poor children lagging behind in performance. Very poor communities face many
hardships, where children, families, and the schools that serve them confront a host of challenges. For
schools, these challenges include children who start school without early literacy skills, high rates of
absenteeism and transience, difficulty attracting experienced teachers, and much more (Stiefel et al.
2000). There are public schools in poor communities that are making substantial progress, or have
excelled, in their mission of teaching children to read, do mathematics, and develop higher-order thinking
skills. Researchers have looked at such schools to determine what characteristics they share. Lessons
learned from high-performing, high-poverty schools could bolster efforts by school leaders and educators
strengthen low-performing schools (Carter 2000). The best available research indicates that positive
change and success can occur even under the most challenging conditions. The first factor is what
Cawelti (2000) referred to as "a sustained focus on multiple factors." That is, schools do not achieve high
performance by doing one or two things differently. They must do a number of things differently, and all at
the same time, to begin to achieve the critical mass that will make a difference in student outcomes—in
other words, high-poverty schools that achieve gains in student performance engage in systemic change.

Principals establish high expectations for themselves and their staff, teachers set high expectations for
themselves and their students, and students learn to have high expectations for themselves—and the
adults around them. Everyone models the processes of continual learning and self-assessment that are
asked of students. As one of the audit teams for the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence
observed, "I strongly believe everyone there believes all can learn, and I have never found that in another
school" (Kannapel & Clements 2005). The culture of high expectations is embedded in a caring and
nurturing environment, where adults and young people alike treat each other with respect (see Kannapel
& Clements 2005, Lauer 2001, for example). Haberman (1999) identified the ability of teachers to forge
relationships with children in poverty and connect with them as the key factor in high-performing schools.
In discussing what factors in the school environment produce resilience in students, Borman & Rachuba
(2001) identify “strong and supportive” relationships with teachers as crucial. Cawelti (2000) points to
incentives and student recognition as one expression of caring, and McGee (2004) observes the attention
that high-performing schools give to health and safety, ensuring that students have nutritional meals and
access to health, dental, and counseling care. But researchers differ in how crucial the principal’s role is
and in their definition of the preferred leadership style. Jesse et al (2004) noted both collaborative and
hierarchical leaders among the principals studied. Kannapel and Clements (2005) were surprised by the
variety of leadership styles they observed, yet found mostly “non-authoritarian” principals who led by
collaborative decision-making. Carter (2000), on the other hand, emphasized the autonomy of principals:
"effective principals decide how to spend their money, whom to hire, and what to teach.

The principals who hire teachers place somewhat different emphasis on the qualities that they look for in
hiring, in part because it is so difficult to recruit teachers to high-poverty schools. Some require
candidates to teach a demonstration lesson. Others work closely with colleges to place student teachers
that they can observe and cultivate as promising candidates. Other principals hire teachers with little
experience or training but the right attitudes and beliefs about children and learning, and train them on the
job. In such cases, some principals report that off-the-shelf curriculum packages help these less
experienced teachers deliver instruction more effectively sooner, by providing  detailed guidance for them
to follow in the classroom. Still other schools establish master teacher or coaching systems to mentor new
teachers. But high-performing schools do not stop with the acquisition of basic skills. It was also found
that schools were seeking to develop higher-order skills (Barth et al 1999). Carter (2000) reported a
variety of ways that schools sought to develop the "reading habit" in students, building libraries and
offering Junior Great Books, a program of the Great Books Foundation that provides engaging texts
geared to students from kindergarten through 12th grade. Other schools require students to demonstrate
excellence in speech and writing, or to prepare research papers and literary analyses in early elementary
grades. Middle schools and high schools offer college preparatory curricula. Some schools offer curricula
enriched by sports, arts, or music; others include the explicit study of character.

Although researchers generally find that high-performing schools encourage parent involvement, the form
it takes varies considerably. At one end, Jesse et al (2004) found that many high-performing schools sent
lots of communications home to parents, but did not seek their active involvement.

On the other hand, Barth et al (1999) found that high-performing schools were increasingly engaging
parents in processes that would help them understand standards and student work. Teachers and staff at
these schools view parents as "critical partners" in the learning process (Ragland et al 2002). Carter
(2000) also found school staff actively working with parents to bring learning into the home. He explored
the contract model, where parents literally sign a contract with the school, committing to getting the child
to school on time or helping with homework.

Finally, several researchers identified collaboration and teamwork among school staff as a feature typical
of high-performing schools. They regularly communicate across teaching areas and programs and are
eager to learn from each another (Kannapel & Clements 2005, Ragland et al 2002). Teamwork and
collaboration are very typical, and provide venues for teachers to critique and assist one another, actively
looking to improve each other’s teaching to help students meet specific academic standards. They
address barriers to learning, collaborate to identify solutions, and take part in school-wide intervention
strategies. High-performing schools may also set aside significantly greater collaborative planning time
(Feldman 2003).

References;:

Leithwood, K. and Riehl, C. (2005). What we know about successful school leadership.

Fullan, M. (2001) Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Marzano, R., Waters, T. and McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sergiovanni, T. (2001). Leadership: What’s in it for schools? London: Routledge Falmer

Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Hopkins, D. (2001). Meeting the Challenge: an improvement guide for schools facing challenging
circumstances. London, DfES.
Brookover, W. and Lezotte, L. (1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident with changes in
student achievement. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership,Vol. 37, 15-2

Peters, T. & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Warner Business.