Research In Educational Administration & Leadership .
Research in Educational Administration & LeadershipVolume: 1, Issue: 1 / June 2016Principals’ Perspectives: Professional Learning andMarginal Teachers on Formal Plans of ImprovementSally J. ZepedaUniversity of Georgia, Athens/Georgia, USAAbstractThis qualitative study examined the perspectives of principalsrelated to professional development for teachers on formal plansof remediation for underperformance in the classroom. ldevelopment as well as cognitive dissonance provided a basis foranalyzing data collected throughout the interviews and analysis.The population included 12 elementary, middle, and high schoolprincipals from 2school systems in the United States. Dataanalysis from the interviews yielded three major findingsclustered as themes related to: 1) Cognitive dissonance,professional development, and marginal teachers 2)Confidentiality trumps collaboration, and 3) Professionaldevelopment by the numbers. By examining professionaldevelopment practices for underperforming teachers, the findingscontribute to our understanding about some perspectives thatschool principals hold about a population of teachers at-risk.Implications are offered.Article InfoArticle History:ReceivedMarch, 2, 2016AcceptedJune, 10, 2106Keywords:Marginal nt,Job-embeddedlearningCite as:Zepeda, S. J. (2016). Principals’ perspectives: professional learning andmarginal teachers on formal plans of improvement, Research inEducational Administration & Leadership, 1(1), 25-59. Official Publication of EARDA-Turkish Educational Administration Research and Development Association
Research in Educational Administration & Leadership1(1), June 2016, 25-59IntroductionThe work of the principal remains “complex andmultidimensional,” and “the effectiveness of principals depends, inpart, on how they allocate their time across daily responsibilities”(Rice, 2010, p. 2) including prioritizing and focusing on systems thatpromote the growth and development of both students and teachers(Zepeda, Jimenez, & Lanoue, 2015). Principal leadership is critical inlight of accountability (Wallace Foundation, 2013; Zepeda et al.,2015), the focus on student achievement (Louis, Leithwood,Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010), and overall efforts to improveschools (Hallinger & Heck 2010). Effective principals supportteaching and learning, and they:Relentlessly develop and support teachers, create positive workingconditions, effectively allocate resources, construct appropriateorganizational policies and systems, and engage in other deep andmeaningful work outside of the classroom that has a powerful impact onwhat happens inside it. (National Policy Board for EducationalAdministration, 2015, p. 1)The National Policy Board for Educational Administration(NPBEA, 2015) developed a set of standards for school leaders. Therealm of this research falls with the domain of the leader being able todevelop the professional capacity of school personnel, primarilyteachers whose classroom performance, namely instruction, has beencharacterized as marginal.In the context of the United States, teacher evaluation has beenheavily influenced with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and its callfor highly-qualified teachers to teach in standards-based classrooms.Teacher quality was a step in the right direction, but this provisionwas not enough because “Public education defines teacher qualitylargely in terms of the credentials that teachers have earned, ratherthan on the basis of the quality of the work they do in theirclassrooms or the results their students achieve” (Toch & Rothman,2008, p. 2). Darling-Hammond (2012) in many ways refocused theterm teacher quality as it “refers to strong instruction that enables a26
Zepeda (2016). Principals’ Perspectives: Professional Learning wide range of students to learn” (p. i), and this notion becomes evenmore important when teachers fail to perform in the classroom to thedetriment of student success.The federal priorities prescribed in the 2009 Race to the TopProgram (RTT) situated teacher evaluation as its center-piece wherestudent scores on standardized tests would be matched to individualteachers to gauge teacher effectiveness. “Teacher effectiveness, in thenarrowest sense, refers to a teacher’s ability to improve studentlearning as measured by student gains on standardized achievementtests;” however Little, Goe, and Bell (2009) cautioned that “althoughthis is one important aspect of teaching ability, it is not acomprehensive and robust view of teacher effectiveness” (p. 1).Teacher effectiveness matters because this qualitative studyexamined the perspectives of U.S. school principals aboutprofessional development targeted for marginal teachers who hadbeen placed on formal plans of remediation for underperforming inthe classroom. Moving the idea of teacher effectiveness into theclassroom where instruction unfolds, effective teachers supportstudent learning when they “follow a regular instructional cycle.They assess student learning; analyze assessment results to identifystudent strengths and needs; plan and implement instruction basedon identified strengths and needs; and monitor student progress tofurther adjust instruction as needed” (Bullmaster-Day, 2011, p. 4).In 2015, President Barack Obama signed into law, The EveryStudent Succeeds Act of 2015, the reauthorization of the Elementary andSecondary Education Act (1965), replacing the defunct No Child LeftBehind Act (2001) and the waivers associated with teacher and leaderevaluation brought forward with the American ReinvestmentStimulus that funded the Race to the Top Program. States and theirsystems will now have latitude to re-examine the policy requirementsof their teacher evaluation systems. In coherent systems, instructionalsupervision, teacher evaluation, and professional development areenacted in seamless ways where these processes, if enacted with27
Research in Educational Administration & Leadership1(1), June 2016, 25-59fidelity, work in tandem to support teacher learning and growth(Zepeda, 2016, 2017). Principals are the primary actors in developingand supporting coherent approaches so that these systems benefitteachers and the instructional programs within their buildings.This qualitative study addressed the topic of principals workingwith marginal teachers in their schools, and focused on theirperspectives about professional development associated with theprovisions described in formal plans of remediation. The principals’perspectives were analyzed and summarized to gain insight on atimely area associated with accountability and professionaldevelopment for marginal teachers. This research is importantbecause principals are not always willing to share their experiencesabout working with marginal teachers (Blacklock, 2002; Causey, 2010;Fuhr, 1990). This reluctance is typically attributed to theconfidentiality issues related to personnel and the potential forlitigation (Blacklock, 2002; Blankenship, 2017), responses of otherteachers in the building (Zepeda, 2016), and possible accusations ofteacher mistreatment (Blase & Blase, 2003). This study attempted toadd to the research by examining principals’ perspectives aboutprofessional development associated with marginal teachers onformal plans of remediation.Review of the LiteratureAs background and to frame this study, four major areas in theliterature were examined including the principal as instructionalleader who enacts supervision and teacher evaluation; professionaldevelopment and job-embedded learning; and marginal teachers.The Principal and Supervision and Teacher EvaluationLeithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) claim,“Leadership is second only to classroom instruction among allschool-related factors that contribute to what students learn at28
Zepeda (2016). Principals’ Perspectives: Professional Learning school”(p. 7) and, as leadership improves so too should studentachievement(Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2004).There are manyways in which the principal as instructional leader has been cast inthe literature. The early literature set the foundation for principal asinstructional leader as one who shapes the school’s instructionalclimate (Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee, 1982) and builds capacity inothers by distributing instructional leadership to those closest to theinstructional program—teachers (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2013;Marks & Printy, 2003).The Wallace Foundation (2013) indicates that principals “can nolonger function simply as building managers, tasked with adheringto district rules, carrying out regulations and avoiding mistakes. Theyhave to be (or become) leaders of learning who can develop a teamdelivering effective instruction” (p.6). As a key decision-maker, theprincipal’s role in leading practices and procedures associated withinstructional supervision and teacher evaluation are important tounderstand (Kimball & Milanowski, 2009).SupervisionSupervision is a formative process that positions teachers as activelearners. Clinical supervision includes classroom observations andconferencing before and after observations (Glickman, Gordon, &Ross-Gordon, 2014; Sullivan & Glanz, 2013; Zepeda, 2017). Throughthis model of supervision, school leaders are able to give timely andspecific feedback to promote teacher reflection (Schooling, Toth, &Marzano), wrestle with difficult problems in a fault-free environmentthat supports taking calculated risks (Ponticell & Zepeda, 2004), andreceive honest feedback about performance (Danielson & McGreal,2000; Kyriakides, Demetrio, & Charlambous, 2006). Teachers wantprincipals who are present (Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998), who have builtrelationships based on trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2014), and who haveat heart the teachers’ best interest, wanting to see them improve withthe appropriate supports.29
Research in Educational Administration & Leadership1(1), June 2016, 25-59Teacher EvaluationTeacher evaluation systems in the United States have becomecomplicated and are at the forefront of just about every school,system, and state since the implementation of the waivers with Raceto the Top. The Race to the Top Program created by the Obamaadministration under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act(ARRA) of 2009included revising teacher evaluation systems andprocesses that would include, for example, more uses of studentperformance data, or value-added measures (VAMs), in the overallassessment for individual teachers. Essentially, student achievementdata are linked to individual teachers, and the growth, positive ornegative, is attributed to teacher performance. The Every StudentSucceeds Act of 2015 goes into effect in 2016 and leaves the policiesrelated to the evaluation of teachers and leaders to the discretion ofthe states. The shifts in power now situate states as the major decisionmakers in matters related to teacher and leader evaluation.Teacher evaluation is both a formative and a summative process,and the formative-summative struggle has been a perennial one (Gall& Acheson, 2010; Glickman et al., 2014, Popham, 2013). Admitting anenduring struggle with the dynamics of the formative-summativetensions, Popham (2013) suggests that school leaders engage in both,but to do so “separately” (p. 22). The results of all formativeprocesses lead to summative evaluation for the year (Nolan &Hoover, 2011). The primary intents of summative evaluation are tomeet state statutes and district policies, assign teachers a rating at theend of the year, and in some cases determine whether a teacher willreturn to work the following year (Stronge, 2010).Teacher evaluation systems have failed because “teachers do notreceive the feedback they need, and professional development is notaligned with areas of need” (Callahan & Sadeghi, 2014, p. 729).Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, and Keeling (2009) report “Only 43percent of teachers agree that evaluation helps teachers improve” (p.14), and all too often, “Excellence goes unrecognized, development is30
Zepeda (2016). Principals’ Perspectives: Professional Learning neglected and poor performance goes unaddressed” (p. 10). Tocontinue with the thinking around coherence, high-qualityprofessional development tailored to meet individual needs wouldwork in tandem with supervision and teacher evaluation.Professional DevelopmentResearchers have identified features of professional developmentthat support the transfer of learning to classroom practice(Avalos,2011; Darling-Hammond & Falk, 2013; Desimone, 2011; Guskey &Yoon, 2009; Timperley, 2008). Desimone (2011) suggested there isconsensus on features of effective professional development: Content focus: Professional development activities shouldfocus on subject matter content and how students learn thatcontent Active learning: Teachers should have opportunities to getinvolved, such as observing and receiving feedback, analyzingstudent work, or making presentations, as opposed topassively sitting through lectures. Coherence: What teachers learn in any professionaldevelopment activity should be consistent with otherprofessional development, with their knowledge and beliefs,and with school, district, and state reforms and policies. Duration: Professional development activities should bespread over a semester and should include 20 hours or moreof contact time. Collective participation: Groups of teachers from the samegrade, subject, or school should participate in professionaldevelopment activities together to build an interactivelearning community. (p. 69)These features “have been associated with changes in knowledge,practice, and, to a lesser extent, student achievement” (Desimone,31
Research in Educational Administration & Leadership1(1), June 2016, 25-592011, p. 69), and Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, andOrphanos (2009) shared:While the impact on student achievement is a critical indicator of theeffectiveness of professional development, we believe the impact ofprofessional development on teacher knowledge and instructionalpractice is also relevant, as these are worthwhile outcomes in themselvesthat support increased learning for students. (p.15)Job-embedded learning is a key feature ofdevelopment that supports teachers as adult learners.professionalJob-embedded LearningJob-embedded learning is a construct that supports (1) relevance tothe individual teacher, (2) feedback as an integral to the process, and(3) the facilitation of transfer of new skills into practice (Zepeda, 205).Wood and Killian (1998) define job-embedded learning as “learningthat occurs as teachers and administrators engage in their daily workactivities” (p. 52). Among their findings is the conclusion that schoolsmustrestructure supervision and teacher evaluation so that they supportteacher learning and the achievement of personal, professional, andschool achievement goals. . . . [B]oth supervision and teacher evaluationshould be modified to focus on school and/or personal improvementgoals rather than the district and state required observation forms. (p. 54)Zepeda (2012, 2015, & 2017) promotes that coherence is builtbetween instructional supervision, teacher evaluation, andprofessional development when learning for adults is embeddedwithin the workday over a sustained period of time. Through suchprocesses as “collective critical reflection,” “emphasis on teachingskills,” and the linkages to “formative evaluation results” jobembedded learning evolves to foster highly-personalized learning forteachers (Creemers, Kyriakides, & Antoniou, 2013).32
Zepeda (2016). Principals’ Perspectives: Professional Learning Marginal TeachersThe issues surrounding marginal teacher performance point to theneed for remediation through very formal processes includingtargeted professional learning. In the US, there are over 3.1 millionfull-time teachers (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014) andbetween 5 to 15 percent of teachers in any given school are marginal(Tucker, 2001). Marginal teacher performance is a perennial issue;however, “improving teaching quality and reducing the variabilitywithin that quality is a primary responsibility of school districtleaders, building level leaders, and teachers” (Mead, Rotherman, &Brown, 2012, p. 3).There are no universal descriptions of what constitutes marginalperformance, but from the literature, marginal teacher performanceincludes sporadic and weak instructional approaches that do notmatch content and learning goals (Smith, 2008); difficulties teachingstatewide content standards (Darling-Hammond, 2012); incessantclassroom management issues (Jackson, 1997; Lawrence, Vachon,Leake & Leake, 2005); inadequate preparation for instruction (Fuhr,1990). Fuhr (1990) indicated that a marginal teacher is “a fence rider”and that “marginal teachers usually do just enough to get by” whilebeing evaluated (p. 3). Teachers whose classroom performance ismarginal are often put on formal plans of remediation or what areoften called plans of improvement.Plans of ImprovementIn the United States, teachers who are designated asunderperforming (marginal) are put on a plan of remediation thatexplicitly spells out what classroom practices must be remediatedand the learning objectives for each area in need of improvement.The intents of these plans fulfill two intents. The first intent is thedevelopmental side in which a plan of improvement “reflects theschool system’s concern for its teachers’ professional development [and] helping each teacher do so is an integral part of an instructional33
Research in Educational Administration & Leadership1(1), June 2016, 25-59leader’s role” (Tucker, 2001, p. 53). The second intent is the legal andprocedural one. A plan of improvement specifies areas that a teachermust improve. A plan of improvement includes, for example, areasof concern, objectives and goals for improvement, the strategies tomeet improvement, the support and resources needed, and timelinesto meet areas of concern. The plan of improvement is monitored bythe principal or another school leader. The types of support includeprofessional development intended to assist the marginal teacher toimprove performance in and out of the classroom.MethodologyResearch designThis study was framed within the qualitative research paradigm toaddress the topic of principals and professional development as theyworked with marginal teachers in their schools. The researcherwanted to understand “the process by which events and actions takeplace” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 30) and to do this, the study focused on theperspectives of principals about professional development associatedwith the provisions described in formal plans of remediation. Giventhe homogeneity of the particiapnts—12 elementary, middle, andhigh school principals from 2 similar school systems in the UnitedStates—a collective case study was chosen to allow the researcher toinvestigate several cases of the same phenomenon (Stake, 2000). Thestudy was guided by one overall research question: Whatperspectives do principals have about professional development formarginal teachers on a formal plan of remediation?Data sourcesTwo school districts in the United States in a single southeasternstate were purposefully selected as research sites. The purposefulsampling technique was used due to the highly-confidential nature of34
Zepeda (2016). Principals’ Perspectives: Professional Learning the topic in general of working with marginal teachers. Essentially,the researcher had entrée into both school systems. Thesuperintendents of the school systems were aware of the importancethe findings might hold to influence not only the refinement ofpractices for their school principals but also the contributions such astudy might have to open up new areas of inquiry given the press ofaccountability and evolving teacher evaluation systems in the UnitedStates. The researcher sought to select principals who h
Professional development, Job-embedded learning Cite as: Zepeda, S. J. (2016). Principals’ perspectives: professional learning and marginal teachers on formal plans of improvement, Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 1(1), 25-59.
Leadership, Servant Leadership, Situational Leadership, Authoritarian Leadership, and Moral Leadership. Although each of these styles had some very positive characteristics, it was found that Spiritual Leadership allowed for various leadership approaches to be applied as needed and these approaches were designed
Doctorate of Educational Leadership Center for Research and Doctoral Studies in Educational Leadership P.O. Box 10034 · Beaumont, TX 77710 Office: 409-880-8676 Fax: 409-880-7788 . Therefore, the Lamar University Ed.D in Educational Leadership program has adapted its goals and focus to produce global educational leaders with leadership .
Educational Leadership 2011 Coordinator for Community Service California Lutheran University Lynchburg VA Educational Leadership 2010 Teacher Accomack County Schools Onancock VA . Educational Leadership 2008 Adjunct, RA or TA Old Dominion University Newport News VA Educational Leadership 2007 Language Arts Curriculum Leader Hampton City .
8 Administrative Leadership -Professional Development Plan 9 - 11 Description of Student Achievement Initiatives Educational Leadership/Educational Leader Standards 12 Multiple Measures Aligned to Educational Leadership 13 - 16 Standard 1 - Visionary Leadership 17 Standard 2 - 25 - Instructional Improvement 26 - 28 Standard 3 - Effective .
Leadership, The Transactional Leadership Theory, The Full-Range Leadership Theory (FRLT), and the Four-Frame Model of Leadership as part of the Educational Leadership and Effectiveness. 2.1. The Situational Theory of Leadership The situational theory was proposed by Hersey and Blanchard in 1969, suggesting that different
(1) leadership in self-managing teams and shared leadership, informed by functional behavioral leadership theory, and (2) the emerging literature on leadership in virtual teams. These views of leadership depart from much of “traditional” leadership theory (e.g., trait theory, contingency and situational leadership theories, social exchange
Leadership, Leadership Styles, and Servant Leadership Franco Gandolfi and Seth Stone Abstract Research on leadership has become a prominent scholarly and professional pursuit in an ever-changing, highly complex, and multi-dimensional globaliz
Educational Leadership Dr. Daniel Teodorescu Associate Dean and Professor, Clark Atlanta University Educational Leadership Dr. Sheila Gregory Professor, Clark Atlanta University Educational Leadership SATURDAY, JANUARY 22, 2022 (CONT.) Clark Atlanta University Campus HBCU ELI at Clark Atlanta University Annual Celebration of Leadership 12:00 PM .
