Author:
Cosner Shelby,Jones Mary F.
Abstract
Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to advance a framework that identifies three key domains of work and a set of more nuanced considerations and actions within each domain for school leaders seeking to improve school-wide student learning in low-performing schools facing conditions of accountability.
Design/methodology/approach
– Review of literature.
Findings
– Drawing from the work of Robinson et al. (2008), the authors identify and discuss a set of nuanced considerations and actions for school leaders seeking to improve school-wide student learning in low-performing schools facing conditions of accountability. These considerations and actions fall into three broad domains of leader work: first, goal setting and planning for goal achievement; second, promoting and participating in teacher learning; and third, planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and curriculum.
Practical implications
– This paper generates implications for school leaders, and school leader developers, school districts, and state departments’ of education. The authors detail two key implications for school districts and/or state departments’ of education as they seek to offer guidance and support to low-performing schools facing conditions of accountability. It also generates a testable framework that can be drawn upon to examine school improvement and the work of school leaders in low-performing schools facing conditions of accountability.
Originality/value
– The analysis reveals unique challenges and considerations situated within each of the three domains of leader work found by Robinson et al. (2008) to have moderate to strong effects on student outcomes. These issues motivate an assortment of more nuanced leader actions and considerations in each of the three domains of leader work of consequence to student learning. The analysis provides an important accounting of an assortment of nuanced actions and considerations likely to be necessary if leaders are to support the improvement of student learning in these uniquely challenged settings.
Subject
Public Administration,Education
Reference77 articles.
1. Bellei, C.
(2013), “Supporting instructional improvement in low-performing schools to increase students’ academic achievement”,
The Journal of Educational Research
, Vol. 106 No. 3, pp. 235-248.
2. Booher-Jennings, J.
(2005), “Below the bubble: ‘Educational triage’ and the Texas accountability system”,
American Educational Research Journal
, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 231-268.
3. Brinson, D.
,
Kowal, J.
and
Hassel, B.C.
(2008),
School Turnarounds: Actions and Results
, Center on Innovation and Improvement, Lincoln, IL.
4. Chapman, C.
(2004), “Leadership for improvement in urban and challenging contexts”,
London Review of Education
, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 95-108.
5. Chapman, C.
and
Harris, A.
(2004), “Improving schools in difficult and challenging context: strategies for improvement”,
Educational Research
, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 219-228.
Cited by
31 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献