0.2 Litchka, p. (october 2011). a vision of excellence: exemplary  (Page 2/5)

Recently, many states have reported significant increases in the achievement of students, based upon these assessments (Kober&Rentner, 2011; Ravitch, 2010). However, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 2009), results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that student achievement in reading, mathematics and science has shown little improvement since 2002 (Rampey, Dion&Donahue, 2009; NCES, 2011). Similar results have been found from various international assessments, including the Program for International Student Assessment (Fleischman, Hopstick, Pelczar,&Shelley, 2010) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (Provasnik, Gonzales,&Miller, 2009).

Since the implementation of NCLB, urban schools have been the focus of much attention, since this is where a majority of students are living in poverty and where the highest number of “failing schools” exist (Ravitch, 2010). In spite of these efforts, a significant achievement gap still exits between urban students and other students. Furthermore, urban districts are more likely to have difficulty in attracting and keeping highly qualified teachers, and principals are often faced with leadership turnover, and fewer resources (Kozol, 2005; Clewell&Campbell, 2007). As Rebell and Wolfe suggest:

The cruel irony of the American education system is that low-income and minority children who come to school with the greatest educational deficits generally have the fewest resources and expertise devoted to their needs, and therefore the least opportunity to improve their futures (2008, p. 26).

In spite of such obstacles, there are examples of urban schools that are demonstrating significant improvement in student achievement. Researchers suggest that urban principals can have a significant impact on improving student achievement (Bryk, et al, 2010; Payzant, 2011; Smith, 2008). This study examines the leadership abilities of principals in three high achieving, high poverty schools located within the same urban setting.

Conceptual framework

During the past decade, standards for school leadership have emerged, including the National Standards for Educational Leadership (CCSSO, 2008) and the Maryland Instructional Leadership Framework (MSDE, 2005). Also, educational leadership organizations such as National Association of Elementary School Principals (2008), National Association of Secondary School Principals (2004), and the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2008) have developed standards for principals.

A review of the literature offers compelling evidence that the leadership abilities of the school principal can be a factor in terms of improving student achievement (Cuban, 1998; Hallinger&Heck, 1996; Leithwood&Riehl, 2003; Marzano, Waters,&McNulty, 2005; Murphy, 2005).

The research also suggests that urban school principals, faced with the far-reaching impact of student poverty are more likely to be managerial than instructional leaders (Cook, 2007; Cotton, 2003; Hemphill, 2000; Salisbury&McGregor, 2002). These principals are often forced into accepting scripted curricular programs, meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), use “one-size fits all” instructional programs, and have less autonomy than non-urban principals (Kozol, 2005; Ravitch, 2010). However, researchers have found a number of schools across the nation where principals in urban settings have led their schools to high levels of student achievement and academic excellence (Goodwin, 2010; NAESP, 2002; Smith, 2008). The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership abilities of principals from three high-achieving, high poverty schools within a single urban school district, and was conceptualized from the empirical investigations of Kouzes and Posner (2001, 2003, 2007), who identified the following practices of exemplary leaders: