Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair for Sheri L. Miller-Williams, Dissertation Defense PPT.

The Impact of Atypical Principal
Preparation Programs
on School Accountability and Student
Achievement in High-Poverty Schools
A Dissertation Defense
by
Sheri L. Miller-Williams
September 22, 2011
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Dissertation Chair

Committee Members
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD, Chair
Donald R. Collins, PhD
Carl Gardiner, Ed.D
Clement E. Glenn, PhD
Solomon Osho, PhD

The U.S. Education Dilemma
“Although the U.S. has some of the best public schools in
the world, it also has too many far weaker than those found
in other advanced countries. Most of these are segregated
schools which cannot get and hold highly qualified teachers
and administrators, do not offer good preparation for
college, and often fail to graduate even half of their
students”.
Orfield and Lee (2007)

The Average Minority School
• According to Orfield and Lee (2007), on average, segregated
minority schools are inferior in terms of the quality of their
teachers, the character of the curriculum, the level of
competition, average test scores, and graduation rates.
– Many of these segregated black and Latino schools have
now been sanctioned for not meeting the requirements of No
Child Left Behind and segregated high poverty schools
account for most of the “dropout factories” at the center of
the nation’s dropout crisis. (pp. 4-5)
• This does not mean that desegregation solves all problems or
that it always works, or that segregated schools do not perform
well in rare circumstances (Orfield & Lee, 2007).

Dropout Factories
According to Orfield (2009):
– Schools in the U.S. are more segregated today than they have been in more
than four decades.
– Millions of non-white students are locked into “dropout factory” high schools,
where huge percentages do not graduate, and few are well prepared for college
or a future in the U.S. economy. (p. 26)
– Orfield and Lee (2005) suggest that poverty has long been one of the central
problems facing segregated schools. Segregation tends to be multidimensional.
Typically students face double segregation by race/ethnicity and by poverty.
These schools differ in teacher quality, course offerings, level of competition,
stability of enrollment, reputations, graduation rates and many other
dimensions. (p.3)

No Child Left Behind: Gauging Growth
In a recent study entitled, “Gauging Growth: How to Judge No
Child Left Behind (2007), Fuller et al reveal that:
• Most states and the federal government have adopted policies
that have the effect of punishing schools and school staffs for
unequal results in re-segregated schools, which tend to have
concentrations of impoverished low-achieving students along
with inexperienced and sometimes unqualified teachers.
• The punishment and the narrowing of the curriculum that
accompanies excessive test pressure have not been effective
and there is evidence that it has made qualified teachers even
more eager to leave these schools. (pp. 268-277)

Segregated Minority Schools
• A 2001 study entitled, School Segregation on the
Rise Despite Growing Diversity Among School-
Aged Children supported the premise that despite
our nation’s growing diversity, our schools have
become re-segregated which directly contributes to
a growing quality gap between schools attended by
white students and those serving a large population
of minority students.

Segregated Minority Schools
The study revealed that as of 2001:
• Seventy percent of the nation’s black students attend
predominantly minority schools (minority enrollment of
over 50%), up significantly from the low point of 62.9%
in 1980.
• More than a third of the nation’s black students
(36.5%) attend schools with a minority enrollment of
90-100%. Although the South remains more integrated
than it was before the civil rights revolution, it is
moving backward at an accelerating rate. (p. 18)

Key Factors Relative to Educating High-Poverty
Minority Students
• To broaden the context of the this study an understanding of key
factors relative to the educational landscape of high-poverty minority
schools are important to consider.
• These factors serve as direct links to underperformance in these
schools and often serve as obstructions to a principal’s ability to re-
shape high-poverty schools.
• They include:
– the identification of the disadvantaged and at-risk student;
– alternative education and exclusionary programs;
– the Limited English Proficient (LEP) student;
– the Special Education student; and
– the dropout student.

Demographics of Poor Students in Texas
and Harris County
• A review of the 2010 Demographics of Poor Children Report revealed
that the landscape of Texas families included a total of 3,472,355
families having 6,607,575 school-aged children. Of this number of
school-aged children, 23% percent lived below the Federal Poverty Level
compared to a national level of 19 %.
• Also, 48% of students in Texas, or 45% in Harris County were living in
low-income families based on a 2009 study entitled, Demographics of
Low Income Children.
(National Center for Children in Poverty, 2010)

Demographics of Poor Students in Texas
and Harris County
• Poverty, coupled with other identifiable labels, categories,
classifications, and punitive measures of exclusion
superimposed upon minority students have resulted in a
cycle of missed opportunities and generations of
undereducated adult citizens in the U.S., Texas and
Houston (Harris County).
• The identifiers include: the economically disadvantaged
student, the at-risk student, alternative education
programs, the Limited English Proficient (LEP) student,
Special Education, and the high school drop-out.

The Economically Disadvantaged
Student
• While 23% of all school-aged children living in Texas were classified
as living below the poverty level in 2010, there are even more
children classified as economically disadvantaged.
• According to the Texas Education Agency, in 2009-2010 there were
512,473 economically disadvantaged students in Harris County,
comprising 63.2% of the student population.
• Of the districts represented in this study, Aldine ISD and Houston
ISD had 85% and 81% economically disadvantaged percentages
respectively.
(Texas Education Agency, 2009).

The At-Risk Student
• Nationally, about 9% or approximately 1.2 million U.S. students leave high
school without obtaining a diploma every year (U.S. Department of Education,
2009).
• In 2009, Texas schools identified 2,285,954 or 48.3% of its total student
population as being at-risk. Harris County identified 424,595 students as at-risk,
equating to 53.9% of the general population (Texas Education Agency, 2009).
• While all ethnic groups were included in the data reporting at-risk numbers, it
was reported in 2010 that 47.8% of all African American students in Texas
schools were considered to be at-risk, and 67.3% of Hispanic students were
considered at-risk.
• Of the greater Houston region, two districts included in this study represented
the highest and lowest at-risk populations reported in Harris County. Aldine ISD
had the highest at-risk population reporting 70.1% and Humble had the lowest
reporting 31.8% (Texas Education Agency, 2009).

Alternative Education: An Overrepresentation
of Minority Placement
• In a 2007 study entitled, “The Overrepresentation of African
American Students in Exclusionary Discipline: The Role of School
Policy” the author’s stated:
The overrepresentation of ethnic minority students, particularly
African American males, in the exclusionary discipline
consequences of suspension and expulsion has been
consistently documented during the past three decades.
Children of poverty and those with academic problems are also
overrepresented in such discipline consequences. Sadly, a direct link
between these exclusionary discipline consequences and entrance to
prison has been documented and termed the school-to-prison pipeline
for these most vulnerable students.
(p.536)

• During the 2007-2008 school year 103,727 Texas public school
students were transferred from regular instructional settings to a
disciplinary alternative setting (Texas Education Agency, 2009).
• A review of the same data in 2008-2009, revealed that a large
majority or 68.3% of all Alternative Education Program Placements
were discretionary, and were not a direct result of violation of state
code (Texas Education Agency, 2009).
• Alternative education programs are often used as “dumping grounds”
and “warehouses” for difficult students creating “second-class
citizens” in the education community.

• In Texas, alternative education programs have a drop-out
rate that is five times that of mainstream education
programs and a recidivism rate that approaches 30
percent of all discretionary referrals.
(Texas Appleseed, 2007)
• This fact is significant because while blacks are
disciplined at a rate proportionate to their representation
in the population for mandatory referrals, they are
disproportionately represented for offenses that are
deemed “discretionary.”
(Texas Appleseed, 2010)

The Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Student
• According to state data from the 2010-2011 school year, slightly
more than 50 percent of Texas' 4.9 million public school students
were classified as Hispanic (Texas Education Agency, 2010).
• During the 2008-2009 school year, the percentage of students in the
Greater Houston identified as Limited English Proficient (LEP) was
20.2%. An additional 19.1% were identified as being enrolled in
bilingual or English as a Second Language (ESL) programs (Texas
Education Agency, 2009).
• In Texas, the number of Latino dropouts will be nearly three times
greater than the number of dropouts for any other ethnicity by 2012
(Education Equality Project, 2011).

The Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Student
• The percentage of students classified as Limited English Proficient
(LEP) has a profound effect on the student and his or her transition
into American schools.
• Many of these students struggle to master academic content and
mastery of subject matter can be challenging. In many ways,
academic achievement as measured by the state assessment is not
a true depiction of the skills and abilities of these students since
language often becomes a barrier to the demonstration of mastery of
learning.
• Schools with high LEP populations have high demands to not only
ensure that students are receiving the required support around
language barriers, but also necessary interventions and remedial
instruction as identified by classroom performance.

Special Education and the Minority Student
• Poverty has long been noted as a cause of overrepresentation of
minority groups in special education.
• Minority children with disabilities who live in urban and high poverty
environments are believed to be at alarmingly high risks for
educational failure and poor outcomes because of inappropriate
identifications and placement services.
• A 2002 National Research Council report assessed the number of
students in special education according to race. The study revealed
clear disparities in the special education categories that carry the
greatest stigma including mental retardation, emotional disturbance
and, to a lesser degree, learning disabilities (Donovan and Cross,
2002).

• The Twenty-Second Annual Report to Congress on the
Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(2000) documents the extent and seriousness of the problem:
– African-American youth, ages 6 through 21, account for 14.8 percent of
the general population. Yet, they account for 20.2 percent of the special
education population.
– In 10 of the 13 disability categories, the percentage of African-American
students equals or exceeds the resident population percentage.
– The representation of African-American students in the mental
retardation and developmental delay categories is more than twice their
national population estimates.

• There are overwhelming statistics indicating an overrepresentation of
students of color who have been identified to receive special
education services.
• A 2010 Texas Appleseed report revealed a disproportionate share of
minority and special education students being expelled from Texas
public schools for non-criminal, non-violent offenses.
• During the 2009-2010 school year, 64, 696 students received special
education services in Harris County. An analysis of ethnic group
distribution revealed that of this number, 10.7% of those students
were African American, and 7.7% were Latino
(Academic Excellence Indicator System, n.d.).

Graduation and Drop-Out Rates
• In the 2010 Children at Risk Report, Growing Up in
Houston: Assessing the Quality of Life of Our
Children Report, it was reported that Texas ranks last in
the nation on the percentage of adults with the high
school diplomas; with only 79.6% of Texans having a
high school diploma.
• In Texas, a single cohort of dropouts has been estimated
to result in a loss of up to $9.6 billion for the state (Taylor,
et.al, 2009).

The Call for Transformational
Leadership

The Impact of Principal Leadership
• The school leader has become the central ingredient to school
improvement. Hess and Kelly (2007), revealed that school principals
are the front-line managers, the small business executives, the team
leaders charged with leading their faculty to new levels of
effectiveness.
• The critical mass of research literature supports the concept that
effective leadership is significant to the successful creation of a well
balanced and healthy organization (Bruffee, 1999; Bolman & Deal,
1997; Furman, 2003; Schein, 2000; Yukl, 2006).

The Call for Transformational Leadership
According to Bass & Avolio (2005):
• Transformational leaders motivate and inspire in three ways:
– (1) by raising followers' levels of consciousness about the importance
and value of designated outcomes and about ways of reaching them;
– (2) by getting followers to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of
the team, organization, or larger polity; and
– (3) by raising followers' need levels to the higher-order needs, such as
self-actualization, or by expanding their portfolio of needs.

Rationale for the Study
A recent four-year study by Arthur Levine, president of Teachers College Columbia
University, raised the stakes in this debate by harshly assessing the quality of
educational administration programs.
– Based on a survey of practicing principals and education school deans, chairs,
faculty, and alumni, as well as case studies of 25 school leadership programs,
Levine concluded that "the majority of educational administration programs
range from inadequate to appalling, even at some of the country's leading
universities.”
– The study found that the typical course of studies required of principal
candidates was largely disconnected from the realities of school management.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, Arthur Levine, 2005

– Nearly two-thirds of principals felt that typical graduate leadership
programs "are out of touch" with today's school realities.
– By reputation, principal-preparation programs are not highly effective.
– 69 percent of principals and 80 percent of superintendents believed
that typical leadership programs "are out of touch with the realities of
what it takes to run today's school district
– Over 85 percent of both groups believed that overhauling preparation
programs would help improve leaders.
Schools Can’t Wait: Accelerating the Redesign of University Principal Preparation
Programs (SREB, 2006, p. 18),

• Texas principal turnover is on the rise.
• From 1995–98, 47.3% of all principals left their schools or the field.
• Turnover was highest at the high school level, with 58.6% of principals leaving.
• From 2004–07, principal turnover at all levels increased nearly 5% (to 52. 2%).
Again, high school principals were most likely to leave their jobs (60.7%).
Implications from the UCEA/The Revolving Door of the
Principalship. March 2008

• Highly skilled school leaders are not born — nor are they fully forged
in the instructional setting of the school classroom. Neither do they
emerge fully prepared to lead from traditional graduate programs in
school administration.
• Most likely, effective new principals who have been rigorously
prepared and deliberately mentored in well-designed programs that
immerse them in real-world leadership experiences where they are
challenged to excel will be the most successful.
Southern Regional Educational Board, 2007

The Emergence of Atypical Principal
Preparation Programs

The Emergence of Atypical Principal Preparation Programs
A few things stand out about the ways new providers are
educating school administrators through atypical types of principal
preparation programming:
• These programs tend to give more emphasis to on-the-job
preparation than university-based programs do.
• They seem to favor mentoring over book learning.
• Their formal curricula seem to be more pragmatic, geared to the
specific knowledge and skills required by school principals and
superintendents at different career stages.
• The programs appear to be as concerned with supporting practicing
administrators as they are with preparing them for the job.
Levine (2005)

School Accountability and the
Landscape of Principal Leadership
• The onslaught of high stakes testing, accountability, and
public pressure to meet these high standards
necessitates the need for a different type of principal,
despite training programs that continue to prepare
principals for schools of yesterday.

Significance of the Study
• The researcher believes that through this study a strong
and positive impact will be made on the quality of
principals in the greater Houston area and larger body of
K-12 education.
• The study will bring forth recommendations around
principal development and how training and preparation
of school leaders can impact achievement outcomes for
students, and thus impact urban educational reform as a
whole.

Theoretical Framework
• The theoretical foundation for this study was largely based on the need for
a new model of leadership development which will accommodate the ever
changing complexion of today’s most challenging schools. This study was
framed through the lens of research around educational leadership.
• As a result of an expansive literature review, five main components
surfaced as recurring themes among current trends in leadership. These
components consist of: a) increased accountability; b) need for effective
leadership; c) organizational effectiveness; d) leader as a change agent;
and e) development of school culture.
• This study was primarily driven by Transformational Leadership Theory to
support the notion of school reform through the actions of the principal as
school leader. The two theorists most associated with its modern
incarnation in America are Bass and Burns.

Theoretical Framework
Increased Accountability
Organizational Effectiveness
Need for Effective Leadership
Leader as Change Agent
Development of School Culture
Improvement in Accountability
Ratings and Student Achievement
Results
Transformational Leadership
Leadership Descriptors
 Causes change in individuals and social systems.
 Creates valuable and positive change in the followers with the end goal of
developing followers into leaders.
 Enhances the motivation, morale and performance of his followers through a
variety of mechanisms.
 The leader transforms and motivates followers through his or her idealized
influence (referred to as charisma), intellectual stimulation and individual
consideration).
 In addition, the leader encourages followers to come up with new and unique
ways to challenge the status quo and to alter the environment to support being
successful.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative causal-comparative study was to
investigate the differences between the impact of atypical and
traditional principal preparation on school accountability
and student achievement in the Greater Houston area
high-poverty schools.

The study included an analysis of school accountability
ratings and student achievement results at a select group of
high-poverty schools to compare overall school and student
performance of a comparison group of traditionally trained
principals versus atypically trained principals.

• In this study, the researcher sought to identify differences that exist
between the type of principal preparation and to analyze quantitative
data.
• For the purposes of this research study, the researcher sought to
compare the means (sets of scores) from two independent or different
groups.
• The comparison groups consisted of those who have participated in
atypical or traditional principal preparation programs.

Research Questions & Null Hypotheses

Research Hypotheses
In order to answer the research questions, the researcher developed the
following null hypotheses:
(H01): There will be no statistically significant difference in school accountability
ratings of high-poverty schools in the Greater Houston area having principals who
went through atypical principal preparation and those high-poverty schools with
principals receiving atypical principal preparation.
(H02): There will be no statistically significant difference in student achievement
outcomes of high-poverty schools in the Greater Houston area having
principals who went through atypical principal preparation and those high-poverty
schools with principals receiving traditional principal preparation.

Research Questions
Research and information gained from a synthesis of related literature
helped to formulate research questions to guide this study. The
researcher attempted to find answers to the following research
questions:
1. Are there differences in school accountability in high-poverty
schools in the Greater Houston area where principal training and
preparation programs differ (atypical vs. traditional)?
2. Are there differences in student achievement in high-poverty
schools in the Greater Houston area where principal training and
preparation programs differ (atypical vs. traditional)?

Variables
• There was one independent variable with two levels:
– X1= atypical principal preparation, and
– X2= traditional principal preparation.
• For each research question, the researcher had one dependent
variable:
– School Accountability Ratings (Exemplary, Recognized, Acceptable,
and Unacceptable); and
– Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) student
achievement scores in mathematics and reading.

Subjects of the Study
• The approximate number of schools matched to the principals in the
Greater Houston area in the quantitative data set was 100.
• The number of students housed in the schools matched to the principals
in the quantitative data set was approximately 70,000 (100 schools with
approximately 700 students enrolled= 70,000).

Target Population and Sample
• Five districts in the Greater Houston area were targeted to participate in the
study. These districts included:
• Houston ISD,
• Aldine ISD,
• Alief ISD,
• Cy-Fair ISD; and
• Humble ISD.
• All elementary, middle and high schools within these five districts were
included as part of the target population.
• The selected districts were all located in Harris County, had at least 30,000
students, and at least 30% of its students classified as economically
disadvantaged.

Sampling Procedures
• For this study the researcher employed a two-fold sampling strategy:
criterion sampling and the snowballing sampling technique. A
sample size of 100 principals/schools was selected for the study.
• A criterion sampling approach was utilized to select 100 principals/school
to participate in the study.
• The sample population consisted of 20 principals/schools selected from
each of the five targeted districts.
• Within this sample, a combination of 10 atypically trained and 10
traditionally trained principals were included for each district represented
in the study.
• The sample included 50 atypically trained and 50 traditionally trained
principals and the schools they lead.

Research Design
• Descriptive statistics were used to compile demographic data on all
participating principals/schools included in the study. The statistical analysis
portion of the study relied solely on quantitative instruments.
• A quantitative causal-comparative design was used to determine the cause
for or the consequences of differences between participants in the study.
• The basic causal-comparative design involved selecting two or more groups
that differ on a particular variable of interest and comparing them on another
variable (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009).
• The value of using this type of design is the ability for the researcher to
identify possible causes of observed variations in behavior patterns
(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009).
• Utilizing this methodology, the researcher was able to investigate the effects
of the independent variable after it has been implemented or had already
occurred.

Instrumentation
• A School Leadership Demographic Survey was created by the researcher to
analyze the target population and narrow the sample based on identified criteria.
• The survey was comprised of nine sections:
– school name;
– grade level;
– economically disadvantaged percentage;
– years of experience as a building principal;
– total years as principal of the current school;
– total years of administrative experience;
– ethnicity;
– gender; and
– type of principal training.
The purpose of the survey was to narrow the total population down to a
sample size based on the criteria identified for the study.

School Leadership Demographic Survey
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF ATYPICAL PRINCIPAL PREPARATION PROGRAMS ON SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY AND
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOLS
THE SCHOOL LEADERSHIP DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY (APPENDIX 1)
Section I: School Demographics
School Name __________________________________
Enrollment __________________________________
Grade Level K-5 5-6 6-8 9-12
Years of Principal Experience 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 or more
Economically Disadvantaged % __________________________________
Section II: Principal Demographics
Ethnicity M F
Gender W AA H O
Years of Admin Experience 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 20+
Note: Administrative experience in any supervisory position not defined as the principalship.
Section III: Principal Preparation
Note: Please select the type of principal development program you participated in defined by the descriptions below.
__________ Traditional Principal Preparation (Completion of Master’s Degree and principal certification attained prior to assuming
principalship.
__________ Atypical Principal Preparation (Completion of Master’s Degree, principal certification and an extended training program
which includes field residency or clinical internship with a mentor principal or coaching from a master principal.

Instrumentation
• The Texas Education Agency’s AEIS report and TAKS scores for 2008-
2009 and 2009-2010 were used to measure the impact of principal
leadership on school accountability ratings and student achievement
results for atypically trained principals versus traditionally trained
principals.
• To compare school accountability ratings, the AEIS report was
accessed and included two academic years of rankings classified as:
Exemplary (E), Recognized (R), Acceptable (A) or Unacceptable (U) for
each principal/school included in the study.
• Student achievement results were also measured by the percentage of
growth in mathematics and reading for two academic years (2008-2009
and 2009-2010) for each principal/school included in the study.

Statistical Analysis
The following steps were used in the statistical analysis portion of the study:
• Step 1: Administered the School Leadership Survey to establish a pool of 100
principals/schools for the study. Assigned a number to surveys as they were returned
to the researcher. Entered all demographic information into an Excel spreadsheet
based on the number assigned.
• Step 2: Identified and selected participating principals/schools based on survey data,
and employed the criterion sampling approach to cross-reference survey data with the
Texas Education Agency’s AEIS data report to identify schools that met the
established criteria. Highlighted those schools meeting the criteria on the Excel
spreadsheet to be identified as meeting the criteria for the study.
• Step 3: Created final Excel database to include 100 schools from five targeted
districts, ensuring that the sample included 50 traditionally trained and 50 atypically
trained principals.
• Step 4: Accessed and retrieved 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 extant AEIS reports from
the Texas Education Agency website. For each school year, accessed the reading,
mathematics and school accountability rating for each school. Entered this information
into the Excel spreadsheet.

Statistical Analysis
Step 5: Disaggregated the data by differences in reading, mathematics and school accountability ratings for
each school.
Step 6: The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 13.0) was utilized to analyze the data.
Frequencies and percentages were calculated and represented graphically. The Independent Samples
T-Test was used to measure differences in the comparison groups.
Step 7: The researcher constructed frequency polygons and then calculated the mean and standard
deviation of each group if the variable was quantitative.
Step 8: Generalizations regarding the study were made to the cohort of public schools to determine the effect
2008-2009 2009-2010
Reading Reading
Mathematics Mathematics
School Accountability
Ratings
School Accountability
Ratings
Traditionally Trained Principals
Atypically Trained Principals

Table 1:Frequency Distribution by Type of
Principal Preparation
Principals Preparation Number Percent
Atypical 50 50.0
Traditional 50 50.0
Total (N) 100 100.0

Table 2: Frequency Distribution by Gender and Type
of Preparation
Type of Preparation
Atypical (50) Traditional (50) Total
Gender N % N % N %
Male 17 17.0 19 19.0 36 36.0
Female 33 33.0 31 31.0 64 64.0
Total 50 50.0 50 50.0 100 100

Table 3: Frequency Distribution by Ethnicity and
Type of Preparation
Type of Preparation
Ethnicity N % N % N %
White
American
29 29.0 32 32.0 61 61.0
African
American
15 15.0 11 11.0 26 26.0
Hispanic
American
6 6.0 7 7.0 13 13.0
Total 50 50.0 50 50.0 100 100

Table 4: Frequency Distribution by Years of
Experience on Campus
Type of Preparation
Yrs of
Experience
On Campus
N % N % N %
1 to 3 9 9.0 7 7.0 16 16.0
4 to 6 21 21.0 21 21.0 42 42.0
7 to 9 10 10.0 16 16.0 26 26.0
10 + years 10 10.0 6 6.0 16 16.0
Total 50 50.0 50 50.0 100 100

Table 5: Frequency Distribution by Years of
Experience as an Administrator
Years of
Experience
As an
Administrator
Atypical
(50)
Traditional
(50)
Total
N % N % N %
1 to 5 2 2.0 4 4.0 6 6.0
6 to 10 20 20.0 26 26.0 46 46.0
11 to 15 17 17.0 16 16.0 33 33.0
16 to 20 7 7.0 3 3.0 10 10.0
21 + years 4 4.0 1 1.0 5 5.0
Total 50 50.0 50 50.0 100 100

Table 6: Frequency Distribution by Grade Levels
and Type of Preparation
Grade Level
Type of Preparation
N % N % N %
K-4 21 21.0 16 16.0 37 37.0
5-6 2 2.0 7 7.0 9 9.0
7-8 15 15.0 14 14.0 29 29.0
9-12 12 12.0 13 13.0 24 24.0
Total (N) 50 50.0 50 50.0 100 100

Table 7: Frequency Distribution by Grade Levels
and Type of Preparation
School District Number Percent
Aldine 20 20.0%
Alief 20 20.0%
Humble 20 20.0%
HISD 20 20.0%
Cy-Fair ISD 20 20.0%
Total (N) 100 100.0%

Research Hypotheses 1
H01: There will be no statistically significant
difference in school accountability ratings of
high poverty schools in the Greater Houston
area having principals who went through
atypical principal preparation and those high
poverty schools with principals receiving
traditional principals’ preparation.

Table 8: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the School
Accountability Ratings of High- Poverty Schools with Atypical and
Traditional Principals (08-09)
Statistics Atypical
(n=50)
Traditional
(n=50)
Mean 2.98 2.54
SD 0.82 0.93
SE .11 0.13
Mean Difference .44
df 98
t
p 2.51
.014*
*Significant at the .05 level

Table 9: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the School
Accountability Ratings of High- Poverty Schools with Atypical and
Statistics Atypical
(n=50)
Traditional
(n=50)
Mean 3.22 3.14
SD 0.62 0.67
SE 0.01 0.01
Mean Difference .08
df 98
t
p
.0621
.536

Research Hypotheses 2
H02: There will be no statistically significant
differences in student achievement outcomes of
high poverty schools in the greater Houston
area having principals who went through a
typical principal preparation and those high
poverty schools with principals receiving
traditional principal preparation.

Table 10: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the TAKS Total
Achievement Scores of Students in High-Poverty Schools with Atypical and
Statistics Atypical
(n=50)
Traditional
(n=50)
Mean 74.3 72.4
SD 00.12 00.11
SE 00.02 00.02
Mean Difference .02
df 98
t
p
.813
.418

Table 11: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the Reading TAKS
Statistics Atypical
(n=50)
Traditional
(n=50)
Mean 89.0 83.0
SD 00.001 00.11
SE 00.001 00.02
Mean Difference 0.06
df 0.98
t
p
3.41
0.001***
***Significant at the .001 level

Table 12: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the Math TAKS Achievement
Scores of Students in High-Poverty Schools with Atypical and Traditional
Principals (08-09)
Statistics Atypical
(n=50)
Traditional
(n=50)
Mean 83.1 79.2
SD 00.10 00.11
SE 00.01 00.01
df 98
t
p
1.91
0.060

Table 13: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the TAKS Total Achievement
Principals (09-10)
Statistics Atypical
(n=50)
Traditional
(n=50)
Mean 81.8 75.2
SD 00.09 00.11
SE 00.01 .01
Mean Difference .06
df 98
t
p
3.34
.001***
***Significant at the .001 level

Table 14: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the Reading TAKS
Statistics Atypical
(n=50)
Traditional
(n=50)
Mean 91.2 86.6
SD 00.01 00.10
SE 00.001 00.01
df 98
t
p
2.76
0 .007**
**Significant at the .01 level

Table 15: T-Test Results Comparing Differences in the Math TAKS Achievement
Principals (09-10)
Statistics Atypical
(n=50)
Traditional
(n=50)
Mean 88.5 84.8
SD 00.01 00.11
SE 00.001 00.001
Mean Difference .04
df 98
t 1.998
p .049*
*Significant at the .05 level

Summary of Findings,
Discussion, Conclusions, and
Recommendations

Summary of Significance
Variable Measured
Statistically
Significant
Not Statistically
Significant
Level of
Significance
Accountability Rating
(08-09) X .014*
Accountability Rating
(09-10)
X
TAKS (All) 08-09 X
TAKS (All) 09-10 X .001***
TAKS Reading (08-09) X .001***
TAKS Reading(09-10) X .007**
TAKS Math (08-09) X
TAKS Math (09-10) X .049*

Discussion
The most interesting finding of the study was the evidence that principal preparation
had an influence on the overall school performance and academic achievement of
students attending high poverty schools.
Kenneth Leithwood and his colleagues said in their landmark 2004 report, “How
Leadership Influences Student Learning,”:
There are virtually no documented instances of troubled schools being turned
around in the absence of intervention by talented leaders. While other factors
within the school also contribute to such turnarounds, leadership is the catalyst.
If leadership is in fact the critical bridge to having school improvement pay off
for children, we need to understand how to better prepare school administrators to
lead the increasingly complex institution we call school, so that all children can
learn to high standards. (p. 5)

Discussion
• A notable finding from the present study pertained to the influence of
principals’ preparation programs on the accountability ratings of high
poverty schools during the 08-09 and 09-10 academic school years.
• Specifically the preparation programs of principals had influence on
the accountability ratings of high poverty schools during one of two
school years measured in the study.
• These findings correspond with the research of the Wallace
Foundation (2007), Davis (2003), Forman (2003), Schein (2000),
and Hallinger and Heck (1999). These researchers found a
significant relationship between overall school effectiveness and
principal preparation.

Discussion
• The findings regarding the influence of the variable principals’ preparation
programs on academic achievement of students were consistent with those of
Fielder (2003), Leithwood (2004), Southern Regional Education Board (2007),
and Institution for Educations Leadership (2010).
– The findings from research conducted by the above researchers indicated that
principals’ preparation was a significant predictor of student academic success.
• The current findings regarding the significant effect of principals’ preparation
program on the academic achievement of students were supported by the works
of Fielder (2003), Leithwood and Associates (2004) and Institution for
Educational Leadership (2000).
– The aforementioned researchers found that principals’ preparation had a significant
impact on the academic achievement, and the results of the study did show a
significant difference in Reading for both years tested, and in Mathematics in one out
of the two years tested

The Lack of Influence of the Texas Performance
Measure
• The TPM allowed districts to count as passing certain students who
failed the TAKS test but were projected to pass within three years.
With implementation of the TPM, the number of schools ranked
“exemplary” skyrocketed in 2010, with 239 schools receiving the
highest “exemplary” rating - more than three times the number that
would have received that rating without TPM.
• For the purposes of this study, all schools accountability ratings and
student achievement scores for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010
school year included TPM as a factor.
• A notable finding in this study was despite the implementation of
TPM and its influence on school accountability ratings and student
achievement ratings for Texas schools during this period, schools
led by atypically trained principals still outperformed traditionally
trained principals overwhelmingly.

Conclusions
• The theoretical framework for the study was grounded by the notion
that transformational leadership is the vehicle by which a principal
leads sustainable change at high poverty campuses.
• The basis for the research hypotheses was driven by the expected
influence of atypical principal preparation had on school
accountability ratings and student achievement in high poverty
schools.
• The literature clearly supported the underpinnings that atypical
principal preparation programs share common design elements that
traditional principal preparation programs are missing.

Conclusions
• The results of this study clearly support Levine’s (2005) work around
the need to reframe principal preparation with the atypically trained
principal outperforming the traditionally trained principal on five of the
eight variables measured in this research study.
• Accordingly, this study brings the atypical principal preparation
modality to the forefront as potentially having found the potential
answer to preparing principals to lead a new and different type of
school, meet the needs of students who come with a multitude of
challenges, and change the trajectory of the achievement gap across
schools in the U. S. that have struggle for generations.

Conclusions
Levine (2005) reveals that:
A few things stand out about the ways these new providers are educating
school administrators.
• they tend to give more emphasis to on-the-job preparation than university-
based programs do.
• they seem to favor mentoring over book learning.
• their formal curricula seem to be more pragmatic, geared to the specific
knowledge and skills required by school principals and superintendents at
different career stages.
• they appear to be as concerned with supporting practicing administrators as
they are with preparing them for the job.
• they seem largely to distrust education school faculty.
• most of these programs have chosen to avoid or minimize involvement with
education schools and to limit the use of education school professors as
program instructors.
(pp. 51-52)

Conclusions
• Irrespective of the modality of preparation, the role of the principal in
leading improvement efforts at high poverty schools is undeniable.
• Regardless of the type of preparation received by principals’,
particularly those tested in this investigation, the fact that two modes
of principal preparation were presented, tested, and yielded vastly
different results, symbolizes a need to ensure that more work is done
beyond this study.
• Also, since most of the students attending the types of schools
included in this study dominated by minorities from low income
households, the type of training principals’ receive must take into
account cultural differences and how these differences impact the
total pedagogical environment.

Recommendations for the Field of Education
Recommendation One:
• A national committee should be formed to work on the redesign of
principal preparation should be formed create national guidelines
around principal preparation.
• This committee should include national researchers and
organizations whose work centers around principal preparation and
effectiveness, university schools of education, atypical providers of
principal preparation, and school districts from across the nations.
• The committee’s work should be driven around how principal
preparation programs are built around the Interstate School
Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for principals.

Recommendation Two
• A complete redesign of university principal preparation program should take
place to ensure that both traditional and atypical programs have content
and experiential alignment. These programs should move away from basic
theory to more real-world application through partnerships with school
districts around internship and mentorship in school settings.
Recommendation Three
• Public school administrators, especially those responsible for hiring and
developing principals should be cognizant of the preparation and training
these individuals undergo to enhance their leadership skills. Research has
shown in many instances that the leadership behavior of the principals, if
effective, can improve the academic performance of students, as well as,
the overall school effectiveness.

Recommendation Four
• Principal preparation programs should teach the core leadership
skills necessary to leading high-poverty schools, but also prepare
principals to lead improvements alongside the challenges facing
students in poverty (i.e. Economically Disadvantaged, At-Risk,
Special Education, Limited English Proficient, Alternative Education,
and the Drop-Out)
• Principals need to be well-versed in what challenges minority
students bring, and how to deal with them. Principal preparation
programs should teach the core leadership skills necessary to
leading high-poverty schools, but also prepare principals to lead
improvements alongside the challenges facing students in poverty
(i.e. Economically Disadvantaged, At-Risk, Special Education,
Limited English Proficient, Alternative Education, and the Drop-Out)
Principals need to be well-versed in what challenges minority
students bring, and how to deal with them.

Recommendation Five
• Principal preparation programs should include selection criteria to
assess a candidate’s ability to lead transformative efforts on a
school campus.
• Assessment criteria built around Leithwood model of
transformational leadership should include the candidates ability to:
(1) build a school vision, (2) establish school goals, (3) provide
intellectual stimulation to teachers staff, and students, (4)
understand the need to offer individualized support to teachers and
students, (5) model best practices and important organizational
values, (6) demonstrate high performance expectations for all
stakeholders, (7) create a productive school culture, and (8)
develop structures to foster participation in school decisions.

Recommendation Six
• Principal preparation programs should include selection criteria to assess a
candidate’s cultural proficiency in working with urban students.
• The Haberman Star Urban Questionnaire is a research-based instrument
being used by districts across the country. The questionnaire predicts which
candidates will succeed as school principals serving diverse children and
youth in urban poverty in major urban school districts. It analyzes
respondents' answers to thirteen dimensions of urban school
administration.
• These dimensions were identified in our studies of star urban principals who
led effective schools in major urban districts or who turned failing schools
into effective ones. The items represent star administrators' behaviors and
predispositions to act. These actions reflect an ideology regarding the
respondents' beliefs about the nature of effective schooling for diverse
children and youth in urban poverty and the nature of school leadership
necessary to create such schools.

Recommendation Seven
• Public school administrators and other school district officials
should be aware of the social, cultural, economical and
psychological factors which drive the leadership of principals,
particularly those who will be employed at high poverty schools.
• An understanding of these factors will enable school district officials
to take into account their influence in the development and
implementation of programs to train principals.
• Public school administrators and other school district officials
should be aware of the social, cultural, economical and
psychological factors which drive the leadership of principals,
particularly those who will be employed at high poverty schools.

Recommendation Eight
• Public school administrators whose primary responsibility is to
develop effective, efficient, and quality preparation program for
principals should be aware of the proper role of collaboration in
regards to the matching of principal and school to enhance the total
effectiveness of the preparation program for principals.
Recommendation Nine
• Districts should provide ongoing professional development for
principals to ensure that they are well versed and supported to deal
with the demands of the work in high poverty schools.

Recommendations for Further Study
• A follow-up study could be conducted to compare the growth
patterns of atypically trained principals included in this study to
compare growth across school accountability ratings and student
achievement rates in high poverty schools for a longer period of
time.
• A follow-up study could be conducted to compare the growth
patterns of traditionally trained principals included in this study to
compare growth across school accountability ratings and student
achievement rates in high poverty schools for a longer period of
time.
• A mixed method study could be done to not only compare school
performance and achievement data by type of principal training, but
the study could also include a qualitative instrument used to
measure and collect the elements of principal preparation
differences between atypical and university-based programs.

• A follow-up study could be done to measure the influence of other
factors (i.e. At-Risk, Economically Disadvantaged, SPED, LEP,
Drop-Out, Alternative Placement, teacher years of experience,
teacher turnover, etc.) on the school accountability ratings and
school achievement results in high poverty schools.
• A follow-up study could be conducted that would use a larger
population from various geographical regions across America.
Such a study, if conducted, would provide more pertinent data on
principal preparation and its impact on school accountability and
student achievement.
• A follow-up study could be conducted to compare school
performance of atypically trained and traditionally trained principals
under the new STAAR assessment being introduced during the
2011-2012 school year.

• A qualitative study could be conducted to compare principal effectiveness
based on stakeholder perceptions in high poverty schools around the eight
transformational indicators in Leithwood’s model.
• A study could be conducted to examine the impact of principal preparation
has on school climate and teacher attitudes. This study would measure how
preparation specifically impacts perceptions of stakeholders regarding
overall school climate as well as teacher perceptions of principal
preparedness to impact overall school climate.
• A study could be conducted to compare the student achievement growth
patterns of atypical principal preparation programs across the country
based on national norm-referenced assessments. This study would explore
a comparison of like programs and their national impact on student
achievement patterns of growth.
• A study could be conducted to compare and contrast the elements of
training content in both atypical and traditional preparation programs for
principals.

References
Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of
knowledge (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
Fuller, B., et. al. (2007) “Gauging Growth: How to Judge No Child Left Behind?” Educational
Researcher. 36.5. pp. 268-278. Sage Publications. Web.
Hess, F.M., & Kelly, A.P. (2007), Learning to lead: What gets taught in principal preparation
programs. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 244-74.
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. The Chronicle of Higher Education. pp. 11, 12, 22, 24,
29, 51, and 52.
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2007). Historic reversals: Accelerating resegregation, and the need for new
integration strategies. (A report of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles).
UCLA. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/s/
Orfield, G. (2009). Reviving the goal of an integrated society: A 21st century challenge. Public
Agenda Website. Retrieved from
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=higher_education&list6

References
Southern Regional Educational Board. (2006). In schools can’t wait: Accelerating the redesign of
university principal preparation program. Retrieved from http://www.sreb.org
University Council for Educational Administration. (2008). Implications from UCEA: The revolving door
of the principalship. Retrieved from
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/ucea/home/ucea/www/pdf/ImplicationsMar2008.pdf

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair for Sheri L. Miller-Williams, Dissertation Defense PPT.

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (19)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair for Sheri L. Miller-Williams, Dissertation Defense PPT.

Similar a Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair for Sheri L. Miller-Williams, Dissertation Defense PPT. (20)

Último

Último (20)

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair for Sheri L. Miller-Williams, Dissertation Defense PPT.