Instructional Leadership in the Era of No Child Left Behind1 Anthony H. Normore, California State University Dominguez Hills Jeffrey S. Brooks, University of Idaho Abstract. Most large-scale urban school reform efforts of the last three decades have centered on providing incentives and sanctions for aligning educational practice to standards set at the district, state, or national level. Incentives typically have been provided for educators and schools to meet standards, and accountability has been enacted through various punitive sanctions when schools and educators have not met benchmarks or showed gains in outcome indicators. As pressure for improving student achievement in the current standards-based accountability environment continues to intensify and test results are scrutinized with unprecedented attention, school leaders are urged to focus their leadership efforts on the core purpose of schooling - teaching and learning (Kohn, 2004). This chapter discusses the impact of assessment/standards-based reform on instructional leadership within the policy context of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (Chrismer, Hodge, & Saintil, 2006; Supovitz, 2001; Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001) and how leadership not just by the principal but by a wider cast of individuals in both formal and informal leadership roles, plays a critical role in reinforcing instructional improvement and instructional quality that lead to accountability and improved student achievement. Most large-scale urban school reform efforts of the last three decades have centered on providing incentives and sanctions for aligning educational practice to standards set at the district, state, or national level. Among the key elements of education reform identified in the literature for improving schools and student achievement are state standards, accountability systems, state regulations of teacher preparation and compensation, whole-school reform, professional development, and instruction (Brooks, 2006a; Cuban, 1998; Supovitz & Poglino, 2001; US Department of Education, 2010a, 2010b, 2009, 2008). School systems have typically provided incentives for schools to meet standards, and accountability has been enacted in the form of various punitive measures when schools have not. In this chapter we provide an overview of the American education and assessment/ accountability system, with a focus on the No Child Left Behind Act. Next, we build on Supovitz and Poglinco’s (2001) work by discussing the impact of assessment/standards-based reform on instructional leadership (Supovitz, 2001; Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001). In particular, we examine evidence in support of the argument that instructional leadership is not just a principal’s endeavor, but is instead educational work conducted by a wider cast of individuals in both formal and informal leadership roles. Research suggests that these formal and informal forms of leadership play a critical role in reinforcing instructional improvement and instructional quality that lead to accountability and enhanced student learning, though little of this work considers how NCLB has 1 APA Citatin for this book chapter: Normore, A.H. & Brooks, J.S. (2012). Instructional leadership in the era of No Child Left Behind. In Volante, L. (Ed.), Accountability and assessment in a global perspective. Netherlands: Springer Publishing. Please contact authors for more information. 1 shaped this work (Brooks, Jean-Marie, Normore & Hodgins, 2007; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Spillane, Halverson & Diamond, 2001). Finally, we offer some insights around the implications for policy and practice for leadership development and preparation. No Child Left Behind: An American Education and Assessment/Accountability System As one of the nation’s most ambitious educational initiatives, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 (ESEA), is rooted in a long-standing ideological commitment to equal opportunity for all its citizens, and has changed the educational discourse in the United States. Terms such as “accountability,” “adequate yearly progress,” and “highly qualified” have become more prevalent in the national vernacular (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002; Chrismer, Hodge, & Saintil, 2006; Hershberg, Simon, & Lea-Kruger, 2004). Advocates, adversaries, pundits and proponents, have engaged in discourse for the last decade around NCLB and its system of accountability, a system driven by high expectations, ambitious deadlines, public reporting, and the threat of serious consequences for schools that fail to comply with the policy mandates (Berliner, 2005). Based on the discourse coupled with numerous research reports (e.g., Anderson, 2005; Cohen, Moffitt, 2001; Cizek, 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2003; Devito, 2010; Gonzalez, 2002; Shoher, Manna, & Witte, 2006), NCLB has moved accountability for student performance to the forefront of the nation’s consciousness. The reforms introduced into the ESEA by the NCLB fundamentally changed the way that states and districts approach the challenge of educating all students to achieve high standards (Center on Educational Policy, 2008; Chrismer et al., 2006; Gonzalez, 2002). As a framework of accountability, NCLB was enacted to hold schools accountable for students’ academic progress and eliminate achievement gaps among student subgroups, while also introducing unprecedented federal controls over K-12 school curricula in all 50 states. Many states have legislated statewide competency tests for student promotion and graduation and have developed curriculum guides for local schools to ensure teaching of those competencies (Glickman et al., 2009). NCLB mandates annual testing in reading and math for grades 3-8 and at least once in grades 10-12, with annual tests in science given once for grades 3-5, 6-9, and 1012. States are required to set annual adequate year progress (AYP) goals for districts, schools, and student subgroups, and use the state tests to determine whether schools are making adequate yearly progress toward 100% proficiency for all students by 2013-2014. Districts and schools that meet or exceed AYP goals, or close achievement gaps, are eligible for “State Academic Achievement Awards” (Glickman et al, 2009, p. 344). Districts and schools that fail to reach their AYP goals are subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring measures. Schools not meeting AYP must allow students to transfer to another school within the district and the district must pay for the students’ transportation to the new school. Districts with schools that fail to meet standards for three out of four years must use a portion of their Title 1 funds to purchase supplemental educational services for eligible students. Eventually, such schools may have their staff replaced or be taken over by the state, depending on state educational policy. This framework of accountability provides an important motivation and expectation for participation in developing curricula for the purpose of improved instruction. Since NCLB was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002, there has been an abundance of literature and commentary on the law. However, “while opinions from proponents and pundits on NCLB abound, they have tended to remain ill-informed 2 and have rarely moved beyond criticism of or support for the act” (Chrismer et al., 2006, p. 463). Recognizing that the act’s ambitious goals and demanding requirements touch the lives of millions of people every day (Kohn, 2000; Lee, 2004), “a variety of stakeholders with differing professional identities, political orientations, and viewpoints continue to bear their insights on NCLB” (Chrismer et al., 2006, p. 463). According to Chrismer and colleagues (2006), researchers, practitioners, and policymakers regularly address multiple aspects of NCLB including “…various historical and legal contexts that serve as a foundation for understanding and critiquing the act; the law’s impact on education, administration, and intervention at the state level; the public’s role in shaping, benefiting from, and responding to NCLB and its initiatives; and the impact of NCLB on learning and teaching” (p. 467). With regard to teaching, several studies have noted that NCLB demands that teachers maintain and model a critical stance toward curriculum and instruction lest increasing regulation and standardization obscure a focus on educating individual students and meeting their unique needs (Darling-Hammond, 2003; Darling-Hammond, Rustique-Forrester, & Pecheone, 2005; Gonzalez, 2002; Haertel, 1999; Hershberg, Simon, & Lea- Kruger, 2004; Kohn, 2000; Kornhaber, 2004). Educators are encouraged to explicitly seek to provide transformative experiences within the constraints of high-stakes accountability measures (Covaleskie, 2002; Earl, 2003), though such experiences may not explicitly appear in standards. As resources for public education have diminished, government control has increased, specifically in the form of common standards and high-stakes assessments (Devito, 2010; US Dept. of Education, 2010, 2009). According to Hess (2010) this has been tolerated by the public, at least in part, because current educational reform initiatives have been presented using rhetoric that promotes the very opposite of their actual consequences. NCLB and Race to the Top (see Manna, 2010), for example, claim to alleviate social and economic inequities by providing all children with educational opportunities that will foster success (US Dept. of Education, 2010, 2009, 2008). Supporters of standardized reform maintain that accountability measures based on high-stakes assessments will improve public schools, particularly for poor and minority students (Cohen & Moffitt, 2009; Covaleskie, 2002; Kohn, 2000, Manna, 2006a). However, decades of research reveal evidence that contradicts this assertion: students in schools serving poor and working-class communities are most likely to be harmed by high-stakes assessment-based reform (Amrein, & Berliner, 2003; Anderson, 2001; Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2004; Carnoy & Loeb, 2002; Cizek, 2001; Cohen & Moffitt, 2009). Since its inception critics have argued that NCLB is a regressive approach to education that fails to consider the complexities of student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2003; Darling-Hammond, RustiqueForrester, & Pecheone, 2005; Gonzalez, 2002; Hershberg, Simon, & Lea- Kruger, 2004; Kohn, 2000; Kornhaber, 2004). New Regulations for Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act In 2008, The U.S. Department of Education announced new regulations for Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act that respond to the lessons learned from six years of implementing state assessment and accountability systems (US Dept. of Education, 2008). The final regulations included: establishing a uniform and more accurate measure of calculating high school graduation rate that is comparable across states; strengthening public school choice and supplemental educational services requirements; and increasing accountability and transparency (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). In an effort to understand more comprehensively NCLB and accountability context in American education, we draw heavily from several reports issued 3 in the public domain between 2008-2010 by the US Department of Education in the next sections. We begin with the new regulations for Title 1 of the NCLB Act, as presented by the US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Data on State and District Report Cards. The NAEP is a nationally representative benchmark that parents and the public can use to evaluate the performance of their district and state. Including state-level NAEP results on state and district report cards gives parents easy access to this important information. States and districts are required to include on their report cards the most recent NAEP reading and mathematics results for the state and to also include the participation rates for students with disabilities and for limited English proficient students. For state report cards, the data must be disaggregated for each subgroup (i.e., data must be broken down by student subgroups) (US Department of Education, 2008). National Technical Advisory Council (National TAC). The Secretary of Education is required to establish a National TAC to advise the Department on technical issues related to the design and implementation of state standards, assessments, and accountability systems, as well as on broad issues that affect all states. Specifically, the intent of establishing the National TAC is to create a mechanism through which the Department benefits from expert advice in its efforts to ensure that state standards and assessments are of the highest technical quality and that state accountability systems hold schools and districts accountable for the achievement of all students. The National TAC is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA); thus notice of meetings and summaries of proceedings are available, and meetings are open to the public (US Department of Education, 2008). Minimum subgroup size and inclusion of students in accountability. While it is important to ensure statistical reliability in state adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations, such efforts must not undermine the strong subgroup accountability that is a core NCLB principle. States are given flexibility to use various statistical measures and techniques as part of their AYP definitions, yet they are required to ensure that those measures maximize the inclusion of students and student subgroups in accountability determinations. Each state is required to explain in its Title I Accountability Workbook how its minimum group size and other components of its AYP definition (e.g., confidence intervals, performance indexes, definition of “full academic year”) interact to provide statistically reliable information while ensuring the maximum inclusion of all students and student subgroups in AYP determinations. Each state’s Accountability Workbook must also include, the number and percentage of students and subgroups excluded from school-level accountability determinations. States must submit their revised Accountability Workbook to the Department and peer review for technical assistance in time to implement the new regulatory requirements for AYP determinations based on school year assessment results (US Department of Education, 2008). Including individual student growth in AYP. The criteria in the final regulations ensure that schools continue to be held accountable for the achievement of all students, while providing flexibility for states to include a measure of individual student growth in calculating AYP. The final regulations set the criteria that a state’s proposal must meet in order for the state to receive approval to incorporate individual student academic progress into its calculation of AYP (US Department of Education, 2008). Restructuring. Based on regulations from the US Department of Education (2008) it is important that states and districts take significant reform actions to improve chronically 4 underperforming schools. Restructuring must include a significant change in the governance of a school that has not made AYP for five years. The new regulations clarify the following: interventions implemented as part of a school’s restructuring plan must be significantly more rigorous and comprehensive than the corrective actions that the school implemented after it was identified as in need of improvement, unless the school has begun to implement one of the restructuring options as a corrective action; districts must implement interventions that address the reasons why a school is in the restructuring phase; the restructuring option of replacing all or most of the school staff may include replacing the principal; however, replacing the principal alone is not sufficient to constitute restructuring; and, the “other” option to restructure a school’s governance may include replacing the principal so long as this change is part of a broader reform effort (US Department of Education, 2008). Assessments and multiple measures. There is a misunderstanding that accountability under Title I must be based on a single measure or form of assessment (Center on Education Policy, 2008). Final regulations clarify that states may involve current measures of student academic achievement by including, in their assessments, single- or multiple-question formats (e.g., multiple choice, extended response) that range in difficulty within a single assessment, as well as multiple assessments within a subject area (e.g., reading and writing assessments to measure reading/language arts) (US Department of Education, 2008). Same subject identification for improvement. Current Department policy must establish clear parameters for districts and states to use when identifying schools and districts for improvement. Limiting the identification of schools and districts that are “in need of improvement” to those that do not meet the annual measurable objective (AMO) in the same subject for the same subgroup over consecutive years would be inconsistent with NCLB’s accountability provisions. The law requires that every subgroup meet the state’s AMO in each subject, each year, and permit a district to identify a school as “in need of improvement” if the school does not meet the AMO in the same subject (or meet the same academic indicator) for two consecutive years. A district may not, however, limit identification for improvement to schools that miss AYP only because they did not meet the AMO in the same subject (or meet the same academic indicator) for the same subgroup for two consecutive years. A similar provision applies to district identification for improvement (US Department of Education, 2008). President Barack Obama’s Blueprint for Reform During President Barack Obama's first two years in office, the administration’s signature education initiative has been the Race to the Top (RTT) fund, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009) that was passed to stimulate the nation’s ailing economy (US Department of Education, 2010a). While celebrations and criticisms of RTT abound, serious attempts to understand the program in a larger context or grapple with its underlying assumptions and mechanisms have played smaller roles in the conversation. Manna (2010) indicates that the collective knowledge of RTT’s impact and future prospects is quite small compared to what it will be after the 2010 mid-term elections and the four years that the winners have to spend their grants. However, Manna also suggests that given that federal dollars support some actions but not others, policymakers and researchers may be able to glean additional insights about the conditions under which federal grants contribute most to valuable reforms and where less federal involvement might be desirable (US Department of Education, 2010a, 2010b). 5 Race to the Top is an attempt to raise the bar and foster excellence among schools by encouraging state and local leaders to work together on ambitious reforms, make tough choices, and develop comprehensive plans that change policies and practices to improve outcomes for students. Further, the initiative is intended to support the expansion of high-performing public charter schools and other autonomous public schools, and support local communities as they expand public school choice options for students within and across school districts (US Department of Education, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c). President Obama’s blueprint builds on the significant reforms already made in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 around four areas (See Appendix A): (1) improving teacher and principal effectiveness to ensure that every classroom has a great teacher and every school has a great leader; (2) providing information to families to help them evaluate and improve their children’s schools, and to educators to help them improve their students’ learning; (3) implementing college- and career-ready standards and developing improved assessments aligned with those standards; and, (4) improving student learning and achievement in America’s lowest-performing schools by providing intensive support and effective interventions. In an effort to incorporate and extend this framework, Obama’s blueprint for a re-envisioned federal role builds on the above-mentioned priorities. Next, we turn to these priorities as they are presented in the US Department of Education 2008 and 2010 reports: Promoting a Culture of College- and Career-Ready Students. Access to a challenging high school curriculum has a greater impact on whether a student will earn a 4-year college degree than his or her high school test scores, class rank, or grades. Every student should graduate from high school ready for college and a career, regardless of their income, race, ethnic or language background, or disability status. A new generation of assessments need to be developed that are aligned with college- and career-ready standards and will better capture higher-order skills, provide more accurate measures of student growth, and better inform classroom instruction to respond to academic needs (US Department of Education, 2010a). Effective Teachers and Leaders in Every School The teaching profession must focus on recognizing, encouraging, and rewarding excellence. This is accomplished when states and districts develop and implement systems of teacher and principal evaluation and support that can inform professional development and help teachers and principals improve student learning. According to the US Deptartment of Education (2008), best teachers and leaders are placed in schools where they are most needed with a focus on improving the effectiveness of teachers and leaders in high-need schools. It is further stipulated that states and districts need to track equitable access to effective teachers and principals, and where needed, take steps to improve access to effective educators for students in high-poverty, high-minority schools (US Department of Education, 2010a, 2010b). Equity and Opportunity for All Students All students must be included in an accountability system that builds on college- and career-ready standards, rewards progress and success, and requires rigorous interventions in the lowest-performing schools. States, districts, and schools that do the most to improve outcomes for their students and to close achievement gaps are rewarded, as well as those who are on the path to have all students graduating or on track to graduate ready for college and a career by 2020. Most schools and leaders at the state, district, and school level enjoy broad flexibility to determine how to meet this ambitious goal (US Department of Education, 2010a, 2010b). 6 However, in the lowest-performing schools that have not made progress over time, there is a mandate for dramatic change. To ensure that responsibility for improving student outcomes no longer falls solely at the door of schools, accountability is also promoted for states and districts that are not providing their schools, principals, and teachers with the support they need to succeed. Supporting and meeting the needs of diverse learners, including appropriate instruction and access to a challenging curriculum along with additional supports and attention where needed is critical. From English Language Learners and students with disabilities to Native American students, homeless students, migrant students, rural students, and neglected or delinquent students must be supported and programs strengthened that ensure schools are helping diverse learners meet college- and career-ready standards. Greater equity will ensure every student is given a fair chance to succeed, and every principal and teacher are given the resources to support student success. This means that school districts and states must take the necessary steps to ensure equity, by such means as moving toward comparability in resources between high- and low-poverty schools (US Department of Education, 2008). Promote Innovation and Continuous Improvement Fostering innovation and accelerating success is intended to support local and nonprofit leaders as they develop and scale up programs that have demonstrated success, and discover the next generation of innovative solutions. Supporting, recognizing, and rewarding local innovations should encourage and support local innovation by creating fewer, larger, more flexible funding streams around areas integral to student success, giving states and districts flexibility to focus on local needs. New competitive funding streams are intended to provide greater flexibility, reward results, and ensure that federal funds are used wisely. At the same time, districts will have fewer restrictions on blending funds from different categories with less red tape (US Department of Education, 2010a, 2010b). Finally, supporting student success is the ultimate goal for the accountability mechanisms put in place. Tackling persistent achievement gaps requires public agencies, community organizations, and families to share responsibility for improving outcomes for students. Programs that include a comprehensive redesign of the school day, week, or year, that promote schools as the center of their communities, or that partner with community organizations are given priority. Critical to this discussion are new models that keep students safe, supported, and healthy both in and out of school, and that support strategies to better engage families and community members in their children’s education (US Department of Education, 2008). Assessment/Standards-Based Reform and Instructional Leadership With the publication in 1983 of A Nation at Risk, a stream of reports and pronouncements fueled the popular perception that the U.S. education system was in crisis (Brooks, 2006b). A quarter century later, American educational problems continue unabated (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). According to Haertel (1999), regardless of the value of performance assessments in the classroom, a measurement-driven reform strategy that relies on performance assessments to drive curriculum and instruction seems bound to fail. Haertel asserted that “the use of test scores to index educational success or failure is almost never questioned. Low scores are bad news; high scores are good news” and that “in the rhetoric of education reform, it often sounds as if improving the education system is synonymous with improving test scores” (p. 80). Haertel further claimed that “in such a climate, the logic of high-stakes testing seems compelling….Hold students or their schools accountable if they fail to make the grade” and “rather than micro7 manage schools, policy makers can dictate that content standards and performance standards be created to codify expected learning outcomes and then let teachers and school administrators determine how best to attain those outcomes” (p. 80). High stakes testing has been pronounced as signifying a rational management plan: if there are clear expectations, teachers will know what they are supposed to teach, students will see how hard they must work to make the grade, and taxpayers will know whether their schools are measuring up. If the standards are appropriate, if students and teachers are prepared to accept the challenge of meeting them, if the phase-in period for accountability is realistic, if reliable and valid tests are available to ascertain the extent of students' mastery, if teachers have the requisite knowledge and training to help students meet the challenge of new standards, if schools are not hobbled by extraneous demands and requirements, if necessary instructional materials and resources are available, if out-of-school factors are given appropriate consideration . . . then a measurementdriven accountability system ought to show just which students are working and which ones are slacking off, which teachers and schools should be rewarded and which ones should be punished (Haertel, 1999, p. 80). Haertel (1999) reiterated that it is not hard to understand why accountability testing is popular with policy makers. Like many subsequent research reports have attested, testing enjoys broad popular support and calling for more or higher-stakes testing is a visible, dramatic response to public concerns about education (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Williams, 2004; Blase & Blase, 2004; Cohen, 2003; Darling-Hammond & Barnett, 2006; Hall & Kennedy, 2006). Moreover, and to return to Haertel’s (1999) assertion, “the idea that demanding higher test scores will improve schooling carries with it the not-too-subtle implication that students, teachers, and administrators just aren't trying hard enough” and “ If efforts are redoubled, scores will rise” (p. 80). Haertel emphasized that: Proposing a new testing plan diverts attention from the problems alluded to by all those “ifs,” including conflicting curricular expectations, inadequate teacher preparation, inadequate teaching materials and facilities, and the changing demography of the student population. Attacking those other problems is likely to take a lot of time and money, but calling for another new test costs next to nothing. Moreover, a new test can be implemented quickly, before the terms of current officeholders expire. Scores on an unfamiliar test are likely to be poor at the beginning and then to rise in years two and three (p. 80). The high-stakes testing approach to education reform has been tried repeatedly, with generally sorry results (Kornhaber, 2004). With each new wave of reform, hope springs anew that this time past mistakes will be avoided, there will be dramatic improvements in student learning outcomes, and score gains will generalize beyond the specific tests used to hold teachers and students accountable (Neil, 2003; Platte, 2004; Popham, 2004, 2001). Over the past two decades, one identified “past mistake” has been an over-reliance on multiple-choice tests (Haertel, 1999) and one identified solution has been an emphasis on using performance assessments. Performance assessment and education reform have been a centerpiece of state and national education reform initiatives since the 1990s (Popham, 2004; Smith & Fey, 2000; Stiggins, 2004; Wilson, 2004). 8 Of specific interest for the authors of this chapter is how assessment reform and educational leadership are connected (see Volante & Cherbini, 2007) and how leaders of instruction play a pivotal role in the accountability and assessment equation. President Barack Obama promised to reward excellence and to promote innovation (US Department of Education, 2010a) among states for improving the quality of their assessment systems, and to develop and implement the upgraded standards and assessments required by the College- and Career-Ready Students program. We broadly support Obama’s general notions that improved assessments have the potential to help us: better understand student growth; better measure how states, districts, schools, principals, and teachers educate students; help teachers adjust, improve and focus their teaching, and to; provide better information to students and their families (US Department of Education, 2010a). Further, we contend that improved assessments begin with school leaders who can assess achievement effectiveness and have the knowledge and skill that support effective instruction. Instructional Leadership and Accountability In relation to accountability, the spotlight of educational leadership is on instruction and how school leaders carry out their daily routines as instructional leaders. As pressure for improving student performance in the current standards-based accountability environment swells and test results are increasingly scrutinized, school leaders are being urged to focus their efforts on the core business of schooling—teaching and learning (Huffman, Pankake, Munoz, 2007; Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001). Examples of myriad questions in the research literature include: What does it mean to be an instructional leader? What do instructional principal leaders do differently than other principals? How do instructional leaders spend their time? How do they shape the cultures of their schools? How knowledgeable are instructional leaders of subjectmatter content? How do they work with, and develop, other leaders in their schools? How do they assess the effectiveness of student achievement? How are schools and those who work in them held accountable for quality education? What does this look like? Assessment of student achievement is changing, largely because today’s students face a world that will demand new knowledge and abilities. In the global economy of the 21st century, students will need to understand the basics, but also to think critically, to analyze, and to make inferences. Helping students develop these skills will require changes in assessment at the school and classroom level, as well as new approaches to instruction and large-scale, high-stakes assessment. In most cases such a task requires instructional leadership—leadership not just leadership by the principal but leadership that involves a wider cast of individuals in both formal and informal leadership roles, each of whom play a unique role in shifting the emphasis of school activity more directly onto instructional improvements that lead to enhanced student learning and performance (Brooks, Jean-Marie, Normore & Hodgins, 2007; Spillane et al., 2001). By contrast, the status quo in most schools is diffuse attention to instruction scattered amidst a variety of environmental, social, and organizational distracters that lead to fragmented and uneven instructional focus (Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001). As early as 1973 (Wolcott, 1973), and as recent as 2001 (Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001), researchers found that school leaders were typically engrossed in organizational care-taking and the responsibility for instructional decisions falls to individual teachers. Instructional leadership, supported by the proper tools and resources, can counteract these tendencies toward fragmentation and incoherence. In support of similar research conducted on principal 9 instructional leadership, teacher development, distributed leadership, leadership and learning, (e.g., Blase & Blase, 2001, 2004, 1999; Brooks, Jean-Marie, Normore & Hodgins, 2007; Gronn, 2002; Knapp, Copland, & Talbert, 2003; Spillane, Halverson & Diamond, 2001), Supovitz and Poglino determined that when individual teachers independently determine the kind and type of instruction in their classrooms, three things tend to occur (p. 1): instructional culture of the school tends to splinter, as there is no overriding instructional guidance and no coherent glue to tie instruction to a larger whole; quality of instruction varies widely, as teachers bring different experiences and have different notions of what is good teaching; and, content that students receive, even in the same grade, differs from classroom to classroom, as each teacher prioritizes what students ought to know (Brooks, 2006b). Supovitz and Poglinco (2001) conducted a study on a group of principals identified as instructional leaders who implemented the America’s Choice Comprehensive School Reform Design. The design was developed by the National Center for Education and the Economy (NCEE). America’s Choice is a standards-based school reform model that focuses heavily on aligning standards, curriculum materials, assessments, and other student work products. This core is supported by a leadership and management structure that emphasizes organizational support for instructional improvement and by the building of instructional capacity through ongoing school-based professional development. Findings revealed three emerging themes as crucial elements of instructional leadership: instructional leaders organized their schools around an emphasis on instructional improvement supported by a distinct vision of instructional quality; instructional leaders cultivated a community of instructional practice in their schools, creating safe and collaborative environments for teachers to engage in their work and drawing upon a wide network of individuals to deepen the work; and instructional leaders reorganized their own professional lives, time, and priorities to support instructional improvement (p. 1). It was through these three strategies that instructional leaders shifted the priorities of their schools toward a more disciplined emphasis on assessment for improving student performance. Instructional Improvement Supported by Instructional Quality Research reports indicates that traditionally, school leaders engage in so much managerial duties that they hardly find any time to lead their schools (Blase & Blase, 1999; Cuban, 1998; Fullan, 2005; Normore, 2004, 2006, 2007; Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001; Wolcott, 1973). In the book entitled, Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools, educational historian Larry Cuban (1998, cited in Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001) identified three dominant roles that have historically composed the jobs of educational leaders (p. 1): educational leaders hold a managerial role as an administrative chief; educational leaders’ jobs had a political role as a negotiator and facilitator with parents, administrators, and other constituencies; and educational leaders hold an instructional role as a teacher of teachers. As other researchers have reiterated (e.g., Heifetz, Simon, & Lea-Kruger, 1997; Olebe, 2005), Cuban further argued that in most cases the managerial and political roles, not the instructional role, dominate the lives of most education leaders. These assertions further indicate that: The life of a school principal thus can be seen largely as a tug of war among managerial, political, and instructional responsibilities. Typically, managerial duties overwhelm the other two roles and principals construct their roles largely as managers of their schools. Given these forces, the job of the instructional leader becomes an ongoing struggle to preserve a substantial proportion of time and energy for instructional supervision and to make their managerial and 10 political responsibilities subservient to their instructional ones (cited in Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001, pp. 1-2). It stands to reason that if the goal of instructional improvement becomes the focus of school efforts and serves as the foundation for all activities then integrating these efforts in to the school’s vision is critical. Research offers a variety of strategies to reinforce and distinguish the efforts of instructional leaders (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006; Fullan, 2005; Normore, 2007). To return to findings from Supovitz and Poglinco (2001), among these strategies are the articulation of a coherent vision of instruction, one which teachers and other faculty could envision and emulate; the development of a set of nonnegotiable expectations for effort and practice; and consistent implementation of the vision across classrooms (p. 4). Powerful instructional leadership involves more than just a generic focus on instruction (Blase & Blase, 1999, 2001; Glickman, Gordon & RossGordon, 2009; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). Supovitz and Poglinco suggested that principals who “increase their schools’ focus on instruction can certainly improve their students’ performance, for more instruction is surely better than less. But exponential value of instructional leadership comes from the marriage of an intense organizational focus on instructional improvement with a clear vision of instructional quality” (p. 4). A concrete vision of instructional quality provides “a tangible representation of what effective instructional planning and delivery looks like, provides teachers with an instructional portrait they can work toward, and provides a picture that administrators can measure implementation against” (Supovitz & Poglino, 2004, p. 4). Theses authors assert that such a concrete conception of instruction serves two purposes for the savvy instructional leader: On the surface it provides them with a concrete vision of instruction against which to benchmark the instruction. But on a deeper level, this type of vision can bring the serious and challenging work of instructional improvement to the forefront of the discussions and work. It can change the tenor of the work and help principals to articulate a set of expectations. It also serves as the baseline for both academic and non-academic performance in the school. Teachers are not given a choice as to participation, but are expected to strive toward with the vision in their daily work. Additionally, the instructional leaders set an expectation for a vision of instruction to be consistently applied across classrooms and over time. As a result these expectations can create a standard for instruction that, over time, change the way that instruction occurs (p. 5-6). Professional Learning Communities of Practice that Foster Effective Instructional Practice There has never been greater consensus on what schools must do to achieve the ambitious goal that schools can create conditions necessary to ensure that all students learn. In 2005, many of North Americas’ most respected educational leadership researchers, including Roland Barth, Michael Fullan, Lawrence Lezotte, Douglas Reeves, Dennis Sparks, Mike Schmoker, to name a few, demonstrated how their research validated and complemented essential professional learning communities (PLCs) of practice (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005; Tucker, 2008). Further, nearly all the leading educational organizations in North America endorse PLCs as a best practice including National Commission on Teaching and Anerica’s Future, National Education Association, National Staff Development Council, and National Associations of Elementary and Secondary School Principals (NAESP and NASSP). Considered a powerful approach to learning a PLC cultivates a community committed to fostering instructional focus 11 and improvement across the school. The essential need for leadership—at all levels of school organization—to help professional learning communities realize their promise of improved student achievement (Hord & Summers, 2008). These learning communities of practice create conditions that honor all learners, build community, and design engaging and meaningful lessons that meet standards and benchmarks while keeping the learning in classrooms rigorous and relevant. The concept of professional learning communities of practice has been garnering support within education over the past decade. Based upon social learning theories (Wenger, 1998), the basic idea behind communities of practice holds that groups that form around some specific purpose are a more effective means to achieve that purpose than would be individuals working on the same task in isolation (Hughes & Kritsonis, 2007; Supovitz & Christman, 2003; Williams, Brien, Sprague & Sullivan, 2008; Vescio, Ross & Adams, 2008). This is because there are synergies of learning in social contexts that are believed to be stronger than traditional transmission methods. In order to develop effective group practices, individuals have to comfortably and regularly interact in order to form relationships in substantive and particular ways around specific activities (Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001). Thus, in education, school faculties or teacher teams that collaboratively engage in instructional focus are more likely to enhance student performance. According to Supovitz and Poglinco, “developing meaningful communities around instructional practice is not an easy task. Groups may have a relatively easy time developing comfortable social interactions, but it is more difficult for them to develop sustained communities of practice around instruction” (p. 5). Hord (1997) explains how communities of educators inquiring into the intricate connection between teaching practice and student learning can lead to improved achievement for all students. Marshall (2005), advocates a model that is “owned by teacher teams” (p. 732)—a model where teachers are evaluated on the work they do with colleagues—creating, assessing and adjusting their instruction in cycles using “interim assessments” that reflect attention to essential state standards (p. 733). Recent research has shown that organizational restructuring alone does not increase the likelihood that groups will develop communities of instructional practice (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Newman & Wehlage, 1995; Stoll, Bolman, McMahon, Wallace & Thomas, 2006; Supovitz, 2002; Supovitz & Christman, 2003). Supovitz and Poglino (2001) identify several barriers may impede the development of communities of instructional practice (pp. 7-8): conflicts may arise around traditional roles and responsibilities, between authority and autonomy; philosophical disagreements about educational content and methods may arise; language of instructional refinement may not be held in common, leading to miscommunication; and incompatible incentive systems may send conflicting signals. In their America’s Choice study, Supovitz and Poglino (2001) identified several strategies that principal instructional leaders used to foster community in their school that was focused on instructional improvement (pp. 8-9): carefully developed a safe environment within which their teachers could take the risks associated with change; emphasized open channels of communication and strong collaboration amongst their faculty for the purpose of expanding the networks of engagement around issues of instructional improvement; cultivated informal and formal leaders in their schools to both allow themselves time for instructional attention and to broaden the base for change in the school; employed powerful and symbolic actions and events to dramatize and reinforce their message; and, developed strong systems for accountability even as they expanded teachers’ flexibility to further develop their instructional practices. 12 Recognizing that there are disincentives to changing instructional practices associated with formal observations, instructional leaders can carefully separated their visits to classrooms for the purpose of nurturing teachers from the high-stakes routines embedded in their organizations (Supovitz & Poglino, 2001, p. 7). High-stakes tests: The primary tool for measuring student progress. Most teachers do not believe that high stakes testing is an accurate measure of student learning or school effectiveness (Reese, Gordon & Price, 2004) yet they are under intense pressure to meet state testing goals. One study concluded that standards and high-stakes testing is a number one reason experienced teachers leave the professions due to the pressure to improve test scores and the powerlessness felt by many teachers (Popham, 2001; Tye & O’Brien, 2002). Further, well-respected school leaders have been dismissed without warning solely due to low scores on a singles set of tests (McGhee & Nelson, 2005). A growing body of evidence indicates that improved scores on state tests do not mean increased student learning (Amrein & Berliner, 2002; Brown, Galassi & Akos, 2004; Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey & Stretcher, 2000; Reese, Gordon & Price, 2004; Supovitz, 2009, 2010). These studies contend that students’ motivation to learn is decreased due to stress, fear and anxiety; test preparation cause student burnout on testing; and graduation rates of African American and Hispanic students have decreased considerably during the era of high-stakes testing. Open adult learning in schools violates long-held stereotypes of teachers’ professional expertise. According to Supovitz and Poglinco (2001), the expectations of our educational culture are that teachers—as if somehow by virtue of their titles as ‘teachers’—are experts of their craft. Even new teachers are illogically expected to be masters of their profession, springing forth from their pre-service experiences, fully equipped to lead our youth to high levels of knowledge and skill…that scarce opportunities and time available for professional development in most school environments is a testament to the low priority that we place on teacher learning” (p. 7). Teachers are supposedly ‘the learned’…. “but truly effective teaching (as opposed to caretaking) is a lifelong challenge in itself, a multifaceted endeavor, filled with complex studentteacher and student-student interactions and instant opportunities grasped and missed” (Supovitz & Poglino, 2001, p. 8). Developing Layers of Leaders The day is long gone when the fate of schools’ neediest learners is relegated to the school psychologist and to student study teams. Leadership matters and schools need effective leaders more than ever (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). While the principal is leader of the learning process and acts as the “head learner” (Barth, 1990, p. 162), Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2001) argue that it is more legitimate to examine school leadership as the cumulative activities of a broader set of leaders, both formal and informal, within a school rather than as the work of one actor. Principals may be ‘leaders amongst leaders,’ (p. 25) but it serves both their own and their schools’ interests to develop a broad set of leadership in their schools (see also Brooks et al., 2007; Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2009; Zependa, Mayers, & Benson, 2003). The development of other school leaders serves many purposes. First, “it expands expertise across the faculty, thereby deepening efforts for instructional improvement and increasing the likelihood that these efforts will be sustained over time….it becomes a necessity for principals to lighten their management burden in order to spend more time in the classroom and on instructional issues”…and… “when high-quality instruction becomes the central effort of 13 a school, then those that are quality instructors become increasingly valued” (Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001, pp.7-8). Many of the leaders who rise in schools where communities of instructional practice are developed do not hold formal leadership positions in the school (Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001). Yet, “since the prime focus of schools is instructional improvement, and the currency in these realms is instructional expertise, it is not surprising that the principals often turn to effective teachers to become leaders in the schools…once school leaders give value to instructional quality, effective instructors become more valuable (Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001, p. 4). Distributing leadership responsibilities across the staff of a school is a necessity for principals who want to protect a portion of their time for instructional leadership (Zependa, et al, 2003). Many principal instructional leaders make conscious effort to spread their management responsibilities across formal school leader positions. In Supovitz and Poglinco’s study (2001), principals publicly acknowledged teachers that were successfully adopting the America’s Choice design as leaders for their grade levels. These authors further noted that “Teachers that refused to adopt standards-based practices were asked to teach at other schools. Several of the principals viewed their accountability systems as a tacit agreement with teachers: ‘you will have all the support you need to do this work and you will be expected to do it’. It is, no doubt, challenging to develop a coherent set of expectations and incentives within a school” (p. 8). In support of other research (e.g., Zependa et al. 2003) once the contours of a community become wellestablished the principals become less important enforcers as the community itself holds its members accountable despite a variety of external forces impinged upon these systems. Programs imposed by districts, state testing programs, and even federal requirements often send contradictory and confusing signals of priorities into schools, providing competing incentives for teachers (Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001). Concluding Reflections: Implications for Policy and Practice At the surface level, NCLB seems to be a positive and rational approach to problems facing public education in United States. In principle, everybody would certainly agree that every child deserves a quality education, achievement gaps among students should be eliminated, and districts and schools should be held accountable for student learning (Glickman et al., 2009). Upon closer examination however several aspects of NCLB are problematic. As described earlier, these problems have placed school leaders, supervisors, and teachers across the nation in one of the great moral dilemmas of our time. On one hand, it would be unacceptable for these stakeholders to declare NCLB immoral and refuse to help students prepare for their state’s highstakes test. Glickman and colleagues argue that such action “would place their students at a disadvantage, help bring down sanctions on their school, and eventually result in their dismissal, after which they would no longer be of any value to their students” (p. 346). On the other hand, an abundance of school leaders and teachers believe that NCLB, as implemented, is at best not improving and at worst is harmful to many of our children. The question of morality then becomes whether it is wrong to comply with a system that has such negative effects. Brighton (2002) noted that many of these leaders and teachers respond to this dilemma by attempt to “straddle the fence” between what they believe to be sound instructional practices and test preparation strategies. While there may well be some merit to an approach where a balance is struck between “best practice’ and “test practice” (Brighton, 2002), we contend that educators have a moral obligation—though difficult—to directly confront the harmful processes and 14 outcomes of NCLB and work for change in its provisions. The outlook and concerns of our communities, high school students, school and district leaders, policymakers, teachers, and researchers who bring different perspective to the discourse may or may not agree that NCLB’s fundamental goal of leaving no child behind is honorable and merits universal support. It is from this point of consensus that we hope more stakeholders, policymakers, and researchers will continue to assess the potential and limitations of this landmark legislation. Instructionally effective school leaders regularly organize their schools and personal priorities to pursue improved student performance (Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001). By developing an organizational emphasis on instructional improvement, promoting instructional quality, and creating communities of practice instructional leaders can demonstrate how schools can attain the instructional emphasis that leads to notable improvement in student performance particularly in high-stakes testing contexts (Herman, 2004; Supovitz, 2010). In this light, instructional leaders can lead student achievement in part by using test scores to help identify trends and segments of the student population that are not achieving to standard. These leaders can determine strategic programming and interventions that include an awareness of students’ fundamental knowledge and learning needs. According to Volante and Cherubini (2007), “such a process is instrumental in complementing the developmental phases of students' academic and social growth. Instructional leaders are well-positioned to focus the attention of their teachers on current assessment and evaluation practices…It is through communities of instructional practice that they can then review these practices and their bearings in juxtaposition to any negative and adverse implications of standardize testing protocol” (para. 17). These authors further assert that “by discussing large-scale assessment measures and teacher assessment objectives” within their communities of practice, leaders at all levels—both formal and informal—“can seek input from parents and school councils on strategies to support learning and achievement on the entire curriculum in the context of situated learning” (p. 18). To quote an old saw, and in the words of Cherubini and Volante (2007), parents can be reassured that the school’s effort towards improving student learning in tested areas is “not merely fattening the proverbial prize pig at the cost of starving the other farm animals” (para. 18). Research clearly indicates that in this era of accountability and standards-based reform, it behooves teachers to step up to the plate and assume leadership and/or team leadership roles by engaging in data collection and analysis of their students’ test scores, making specific interpretations based on their classroom observations and evaluations while simultaneously aligning pedagogical practices to both classroom and large-scale assessments. Among the short-term strategies cited in the literature for schools to consider for meeting the requirements of NCLB while balancing the “best practice” and “test practice” are: maintain a rich curriculum and avoid narrowing the curriculum to tested content; use authentic instruction including higher order thinking, deep knowledge and connection to the world beyond the classroom; extensive use of formative assessment where teachers observe students’ classroom performance, engage in diagnostic discussion with students and revise instruction accordingly; differentiate and scaffold the instruction to meet diverse student needs; place limits on test-taking practice and skills; focus on thorough data-based analysis of why test scores are low and plan and implement a thorough data-driven school improvement plan; and, provide professional development that helps teachers and school leaders address conflicts between NCLB and best practice. While efforts in the short-term to reduce harmful policies that prevent improved student learning is certainly helpful, in the long-term is it is not enough. We believe that the stakes are 15 so high for our public school students and public education that all K-12 educators, parents, university educators, and enlightened business people and policymakers who recognize the critical need to change public policy must collaborate to educate the general public, and push directly for new legislation at the state and federal level with the ultimate goal to protect students from external factors that are interfering with student learning and to promote those that foster higher levels of academic achievement. References American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5, 111th Cong., 1st sess. (February 17, 2009). The RTT fund is described in Title XIV, Section 14006 of the law. See Recovery.gov, “The Recovery Act,”: Available [online] at www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. (2003). The effects of high stakes testing on student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32-37. Anderson, J. A. (2005). Accountability in education. Education Policy Series, 1, 1-26. Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents and principals ca make a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Berliner, D. (2005). The near impossibility of testing for teacher quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 205-213. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C, Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 9-21. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals' instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers' perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-378 Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2001). The teacher's principal. Journal of Staff Development, 22(1), 22-25. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Brighton, C.M. (2002). Straddling the fence: Implementing best practices in the age of accountability. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 30-33. Brooks, J. S. (2006a). Tinkering toward utopia or stuck in a rut? School reform implementation at Wintervalley High. Journal of School Leadership, 16(3): 240- 265. Brooks, J. S. (2006b). The dark side of school reform: Teaching in the space between reality and utopia. Rowman & Littlefield Education: Lanham, MD. Brooks, J.S., Jean-Marie, G., Normore, A.H., & Hodgins, D. (2007). Distributed leadership for social justice: Equity and influence in an urban high school. Journal of School Leadership, 17(4), 378-408. Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C (2009). Pyramid response to intervention: RTI, professional learning communities, and how to respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A crossstate analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 205-231. Center on Education Policy (2008). A call to restructure restructuring: Lessons from the No Child Left Behind Act in five States. Washington, DC. Chrismer, S.S., Hodge, S.T., & Saintil, D. (2006, winter). Introduction to assessing NCLB. Harvard Education Review, 76(4), 461-473 Cizek, G. J. (2001). More unintended consequences of high-stakes 16 testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(4), 19-27. Cohen, M. (2002). Unruly crew. Education Next, 2(3), 43–47. Covaleskie, J. F. (2002). Two cheers for standardized testing. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 6(2). Retrieved on December 2, 2010, from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/volume6/covaleskie.html Cuban, L. (1998). Managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany: State University of New York Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Standards and assessments: Where we are and what we need. Retrieved November 19, 2010, from http://www.tcrecord.org Darling-Hammond, L., & Barnett, B. (2006). Highly qualified teachers for all. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 14-20. Darling-Hammond, L., Rustique-Forrester, E., & Pecheone, R. L. (2005). Multiple measures approaches to high school graduation: A review of state student assessment policies. Retrieved on December 4, 2010, from, http://www.schoolredesign.net/srn/mm/pdf/multiple_measures.pdf DeVito, P.J. (2010). The oversight of state standards and assessment programs: Perspectives from a former state assessment director. Washington, DC: Thomas B.Fordham Institute. DuFour, R. (2003). Building a professional learning community: The superintendent’s role. The School Administrator. Retrieved on Dec 1, 2010 from, http://www.aasa.org/publications/saarticledetail.cfm?ItemNumber=2909&snItemNumber =950&tnItemNumber=1995 DuFour, R. (2002). Bring the whole staff on board. Journal of Staff Development , 23(3), 76-77. DuFour, R, DuFour, R, Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.). (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Glickman, C., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J.M. (2009). The basic guide to supervision and instructional leadership. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Gonzalez, R. (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for local educators and advocates for Latino students, families, and communities. Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger, (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. (pp. 653-696). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Haertel, E.H. (1999). Performance assessment and education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 80. Hall, D., & Kennedy, S. (2006). Primary progress, secondary challenge: A state-by-state look at student achievement patterns. Washington, DC: Education Trust. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124-134. Herman, J. L. (2004). The effects of testing on instruction. In S.H. Fuhrman and R.F. Elmore 17 (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 141-166). New York: Teachers College Press. Hershberg, T., Simon, V. A., & Lea-Kruger, B. (2004). The revelations of Value-Added: An assessment model that measures student growth in ways that NCLB fails to do. School Administrator, 61(11), 10-12. Hess, F.M. (2010). Why I’m feeling sorry for Sec. Duncan. Rick Hess Straight Up. Retrieved on November 26, 2010, from, http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2010/08/why_im_feeling_sorry_f or_sec_duncan.html Hord, S. (1997) Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Retrieved on November 19, 2010 from, http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/ Hord, S., & Sommers, W. (Eds.). (2008). Leading professional learning communities, voices from research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Huffman, J. B., Pankake, A., Munoz, A. (2007). The tri-level model in action: Site, district, and state plans for school accountability in increasing school success. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 569-582. Hughes, T. A., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2007). Professional learning communities and the positive effects on achievement: A national agenda for school improvement. Retrieved November 12, 2010, from http://www.allthingsplc.info/pdf/articles/plcandthepositiveeffects.pdf Jones, K. (2004). A balanced school accountability model: An alternative to high-stakes testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(8), 584-90. Klein, S., Hamilton, L., McCaffrey, D., & Stretcher, B (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us? Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp. Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., & Talbert, J. E. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective tools for school and district leaders. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman. Kornhaber, M. L. (2004). Appropriate and inappropriate forms of testing, assessment, and accountability. Educational Policy, 18(1), 45-70. Hershberg, T., Simon, V. A., & Lea-Kruger, B. (2004). The revelations of value-added: An assessment model that measures student growth in ways that NCLB fails to do. School Administrator, 61(11), 10-12. Jones, K. (2004). A balanced school accountability model: An alternative to high-stakes testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(8), 584-90. Lee, J. (2004). Multiple facets of inequity in racial and ethnic achievement gaps. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(2), 51-73. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Learning from leadership project: Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. Toronto, Canada: The Wallace Foundation. Louis, K. S. (2006). Changing the culture of schools: Professional community, organizational learning and trust. Journal of School Leadership 16(5), p. 6. Little, J.W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-51. Manna , P. (2010). Competitive grant making and education reform Assessing Race to the Top's 18 current impact and future prospects. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved on November 28, 2010 from, http://www.aei.org/paper/100156 Manna, P. (2006a). Control, persuasion, and educational accountability: Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act,” Educational Policy, 20(3), 471–94. Manna, P. (2006b). School’s in: Federalism and the national education agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Marshall, K. (2005). It’s time to rethink teacher supervision and evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(10), 727-744. McGhee, M.M. & Nelson, S. (2005). Sacrificing leaders, villainizing leadership: How educational accountability policies impair school leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 728734. McLaughlin, M., & J. Talbert. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Neil, M. (2003). The dangers of testing. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 43-46. Newman, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. Madison, WI.: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Normore, A. H. (2007). A continuum approach for developing school leaders in a large urban school district. UCEA Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(3). Available[Online]: http://www.ucea.org/JRLE/issue.php Normore, A. H. (2006). Leadership recruitment and selection in school districts: Trends and Issues. Journal of Educational Thought, 40(1), 41-73. Normore, A. H. (2004). Leadership success in schools: Planning, recruitment and socialization. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 8(10), Special Issue. Available [On-line]: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll Olebe, M. (2005). Helping new teachers. The Clearing House, 78(4), 158-163. Platt, R. (2004). Standardized tests: Whose standard are we talking about? Phi Delta Kappan, 85(5), 381-382. Popham, W. J. (2001). Teaching to the test. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 16-20. Popham, W. J. (2004). All about accountability / Why assessment illiteracy is professional suicide. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 82-83. Reese, M., Gordon, S.P., & Price, L.R. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions of high-stakes testing. Journal of School Leadership, 14, 464-496. Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning? Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Shober, A.F., Manna, P., & Witte, J.F. (2006). Flexibility meets accountability: State charter school laws and their influence on the formation of charter schools in the United States. Policy Studies Journal, 34(4), 563–87. Smith, M. L., & Fey, P. (2000). Validity and accountability of high-stakes testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 334-344. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221-258. 19 Stiggins, R. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi Delta Kappan, 86 (1), 22-27. Supovitz, (2010). Is high-stakes testing working? @PENNGSE: A review of research, 7(2). Retrieved on December 7, 2010, from, http://www.gse.upenn.edu/review Supovitz, J.A. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2), 211-227. Supovitz, J. A. (2001). Developing communities of instructional practice. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Supovitz, J. A., & Christman, J. B. (2003). Developing communities of instructional practice: Lessons from Cincinnati and Philadelphia. (CPRE Policy Briefs RB-39). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Supovitz, J.A., & Poglinco, S. (2001). Instructional leadership in a standards-based reform. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Tucker, C. (2008). Implementing and sustaining professional learning communities in support of student learning. Alexandria, VA: Educational Research Service. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tye, B.B., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Why are experienced teachers leaving the profession? Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 24-32. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.(2010a). Reward excellence and promote innovation. Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved on Dec. 4, 2010, from, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/faq/reward-excellence.pdf U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.(2010b). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved on November 16, 2010, from, www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2010c). Race to the Top fund: Legislation, regulations, and guidance. Retrieved on November 30, 2010, from, www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/legislation.html. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2009). Race to the Top fund; Final rule. Retrieved on November 18, 2010, from, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-27426.pdf U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (2008). Accountability, assessments, and transparency: How the final Title I regulations support and strengthen the fundamental tenets of NCLB.: Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Williams, R., Brien, K., Sprague, C., & Sullivan, G. (2008). Professional learning communities: Developing a school-level readiness instrument. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 74(6). Retrieved November 19, 2010, from http://umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/illiamsspraguesullivanbrien.html Vescio V., Ross, D., & Adams A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional 20 learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 80–91. Volante, L., & Cherbini, L. (2007). Connecting educational leadership with multi-level assessment reform. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 11(12). Retrieved on November 15, 2010 from, http://www.ucalgary.ca/iejll/vol11/volante Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Wideen, M. R., O'Shea, T., Pye, I., & Ivany, G. (1997). High-stakes testing and the teaching of science. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(4), 428-444. Wilson, M. (Ed.). (2004). Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability: 103rd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wolcott, H. F. (1973). The man in the principal's office: An ethnography. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Zependa, S. J., Mayers, R. S., & Benson, B. N. (2003). The call to teacher leadership. New York, NY: Eye on Education. Copyright@. Portions of this chapter are reprinted from 2008-2010b NCLB documents released by the US Department of Education. These publications are in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. Although permission to reprint portions of these documents is not necessary, written permission was sought and granted from Us Department of Education. Copyright@. Portions of this chapter that focus on instructional leadership (Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001) are reprinted with written permission from the Graduate School of Education, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Appendix A PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA Every child in America deserves a world-class education. 21 Today, more than ever, a world-class education is a prerequisite for success. America was once the best educated nation in the world. A generation ago, we led all nations in college completion, but today, 10 countries have passed us. It is not that their students are smarter than ours. It is that these countries are being smarter about how to educate their students. And the countries that outeducate us today will out-compete us tomorrow. We must do better. Together, we must achieve a new goal, that by 2020, the United States will once again lead the world in college completion. We must raise the expectations for our students, for our schools, and for ourselves – this must be a national priority. We must ensure that every student graduates from high school well prepared for college and a career. A world-class education is also a moral imperative – the key to securing a more equal, fair, and just society. We will not remain true to our highest ideals unless we do a far better job of educating each one of our sons and daughters. We will not be able to keep the American promise of equal opportunity if we fail to provide a world-class education to every child. This effort will require the skills and talents of many, but especially our nation’s teachers, principals, and other school leaders. Our goal must be to have a great teacher in every classroom and a great principal in every school. We know that from the moment students enter a school, the most important factor in their success is not the color of their skin or the income of their parents – it is the teacher standing at the front of the classroom. To ensure the success of our children, we must do better to recruit, develop, support, retain, and reward outstanding teachers in America’s classrooms. Reforming our schools to deliver a world-class education is a shared responsibility – the task cannot be shouldered by our nation’s teachers and principals alone. We must foster school environments where teachers have the time to collaborate, the opportunities to lead, and the respect that all professionals deserve. We must recognize the importance of communities and families in supporting their children’s education, because a parent is a child’s first teacher. We must support families, communities, and schools working in partnership to deliver services and supports that address the full range of student needs. This effort will also require our best thinking and resources – to support innovative approaches to teaching and learning; to bring lasting change to our lowest-performing schools; and to investigate and evaluate what works and what can work better in America’s schools. Instead of labeling failures, we will reward success. Instead of a single snapshot, we will recognize progress and growth. And instead of investing in the status quo, we must reform our schools to accelerate student achievement, close achievement gaps, inspire our children to excel, and turn around those schools that for too many young Americans aren’t providing them with the education they need to succeed in college and a career. My Administration’s blueprint for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is not only a plan to renovate a flawed law, but also an outline for a re-envisioned federal role in education. This is a framework to guide our deliberations and shared work – with parents, students, educators, business and community leaders, elected officials, and other partners – to strengthen America’s public education system. 22 I look forward to working with the Congress to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act so that it will help to provide America’s students with the world-class education they need and deserve. Source. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.(2010). Reward excellence and promote innovation. Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved on Dec. 4, 2010, from, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/faq/reward-excellence.pdf (p. 3) 23