Principal Leadership and Teacher Motivation under High-Stakes Accountability Policies

Leadership and Policy in Schools

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 161-189

  Finnigan, Kara S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960649557     PISSN: 15700763     EISSN: 17445043     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15700760903216174     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Abelmann, C. H., Elmore, R. F., Even, J., Kenyon, S., & Marshall, J. (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer? Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education.
2. Adams, J. E., Jr., & Kirst, M. W. (1999). New demands and concepts for educational accountability: Striving for results in an era of excellence. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 463-489). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3. Barnett, K., & McCormick, J. (2004). Leadership and individual principal-teacher relationships in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 406-434.
4. Bennett, A. (2001). The history, politics, and theory of action of the Chicago probation policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
5. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2001). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do (second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
6. Blase, J., & Kirby, P. C. (2000). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
7. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
8. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S., & Easton, J. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
9. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
10. Center on Education Policy. (2007). What now? Lessons from Michigan about restructuring schools and next steps under NCLB. Washington DC: Author.
11. Center on Education Policy. (2008). Managing more than a thousand remodeling projects: School restructuring in California. Washington, DC: Author.
12. Chung, K. H. (1977). Motivational theory and practices. Columbus, OH: Grid, Inc.
13. Cohen, D. K. (1996). Rewarding teachers for student performance. In S. H. Fuhrman & J. A. O'Day (Eds.), Rewards and reforms: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 60-112). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
14. Daly, A. J. (2009). Rigid response in an age of accountability: The potential of leadership and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 168-216.
15. Ellis, T. (1984). Motivating teachers for excellence. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
16. Elmore, R. F. (2001). Psychiatrists and lightbulbs: Educational accountability and the problem of capacity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
17. Enderlin-Lampe, S. (1997). Shared decision making in schools: Effect on teacher efficacy. Education, 118(1), 150-156.
18. Finnigan, K. S. (2003). Principal leadership and teacher expectancy in a high-stakes accountability policy context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
19. Finnigan, K. S., Bitter, C., & O'Day, J. (2009). Improving low-performing schools through external assistance: Lessons from Chicago and California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(7). Retrieved April 30, 2009 from http://epaa.asu. edu/epaa/v17n7/.
20. Finnigan, K. S., & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago's low-performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 594-630.
21. Finnigan, K., & O'Day, J. (2003). External support to schools on probation: Getting a leg up? Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania and the Consortium on Chicago School Research.
22. Foster, M. (1997). Black teachers on teaching. New York: The New Press.
23. Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
24. Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & White, P. A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4), 325-338.
25. Goldring, E., & Sullivan, A. (1996). Beyond the boundaries: Principals, parents and communities shaping the school environment. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), The International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 195-222). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
26. Griffith, J. (2004) Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 333-356.
27. Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239.
28. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.
29. Harris, A. (2002). Effective leadership in school facing challenging contexts. School Leadership and Management, 22(1), 15-26.
30. Hess, G. A., (1994). Chicago school reform: A response to unmet needs of students at risk. In R. J. Rossi, Jr. (Ed.), Schools and students at risk: Context and framework for positive change (pp. 207-228). New York: Teachers College Press.
31. Hess, G. A. (1999). Expectations, opportunity, capacity, and will: The four essential components of Chicago school reform. Educational Policy, 13(4), 494-517.
32. Hess, G. A., & Cytrynbaum, S. (2001). The effort to redesign Chicago high schools: Effects on schools and achievement. Evanston, IL: The Center for Urban School Policy, Northwestern University.
33. Hilty, E. B. (1998). The professionally challenged teacher: Teachers talk about school failure. In B. M. Franklin (Ed.), When children don't learn: Student failure and the lives of teachers (pp. 134-159). New York: Teachers College Press.
34. Hipp, K. A., & Bredeson, P. V. (1995). Exploring connections between teacher efficacy and principals' leadership behaviors. Journal of School Leadership, 5, 136-150.
35. Hoy, W. K., Gage III, C. Q., & Tarter, C. J. (2006). School mindfulness and faculty trust: Necessary conditions for each other? Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 236-255.
36. Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.
37. Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a "sense of success": New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581-617.
38. Jussim, L., Smith, A., Madon, S., & Palumbo, P. (1998). Teacher expectations. In J. E. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Expectations in the classroom (volume 7, pp. 1-48). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.
39. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (2001). Understanding individual motivation in groups: The Collective Effort Model. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 113-141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Katzell, R. A., & Thompson, D. E. (1990). Work motivation: Theory and practice. American Psychologist, 45(2), 144-153.
41. Kelemen, M. G. (2001). The practice of leadership under threat: The case of schools on probation. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
42. Kelley, C. (1998). The Kentucky school-based performance award program: School-level effects. Educational Policy, 12(3), 305-324.
43. Kelley, C., Heneman, H., & Milanowski, A. (2002). Teacher motivation and school-based performance awards. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(3), 372-401.
44. Korkmaz, M. (2007). The effects of leadership styles on organizational health. Educational Research Quarterly, 30(3), 22-54.
45. Ladd, H. F. (1996). Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Washington, DC, The Brookings Institution.
46. Ladd, H., & Zelli, A. (2002). School-based accountability in North Carolina: The responses of school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(4), 494-529.
47. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African-American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
48. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37-62.
49. Lashway, L. (1997). Multidimensional school leadership. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Foundation.
50. Lashway, L. (1999). Holding schools accountable for achievement. ERIC Digest 130.
51. Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
52. Lee, V. E., Dedrick, R. F., & Smith, J. B. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools on teachers' efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64(3), 190-208.
53. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research, 1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177-199.
54. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201-227.
55. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Fernandez, A. (1994). Transformational leadership and teachers' commitment to change. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts (pp. 77-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
56. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (2000). School leadership and teachers' sense making: The case of government accountability policies. Paper presented at the University Council for Educational Administration, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
57. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Minneapolis: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, University of Minnesota, and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.
58. Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. J. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 309-339.
59. Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University.
60. Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers' motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 94-119.
61. Leithwood, K., Tomlinson, D., & Genge, M. (1996). Transformational school leadership. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), The International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 785-840). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
62. Lipman, P. (1998). Race, class, and power in school restructuring. Albany: State University of New York Press.
63. Lumsden, L. (1997). Expectations for students. ERIC Digest 116.
64. McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
65. Metz, M. H. (1993). Teachers' ultimate dependence on their students. In J. W. Little & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers' work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 104-136). New York: Teachers College Press.
66. Mintrop, H. (2003). The limits of sanctions in low-performing schools: A study of Maryland and Kentucky schools on probation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(3). Retrieved January 20, 2008 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/ v11n3.html.
67. Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. E. (1996). Motivation for school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & J. A. O'Day (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 115-143). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
68. Murphy, J., & Meyers, C. V. (2008). Turning around failing schools: Leadership lessons from the organizational sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
69. Nettles, S. M., & Herrington, C. (2007). Revising the importance of the direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 724-736.
70. Nicolaidou, M., & Ainscow, M. (2005). Understanding failing schools: Perspectives from the inside. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(3), 229-248.
71. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
72. O'Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293-329.
73. Orfield, G., Kim, J., Sunderman, G., & Greer, B. (2004). No child left behind: A federal, state, and district level look at the first year. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.
74. Owens, R. G. (2001). Organizational behavior in education: Instructional leadership and school reform. (7th Edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
75. Rist, R. C. (2000). HER classic: Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 70(3), 257-301.
76. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.
77. Rorrer, A. K., & Skrla, L. (2005). Leaders as policy mediators: The reconceptualization of accountability. Theory into Practice, 44(1), 53-62.
78. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of Education, 93, 359-388.
79. Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. E. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Expectations in the classroom (volume 7, pp. 49-73). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.
80. Sebring, P. B., & Bryk, A. S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), 440-443.
81. Smith, W. F., & Andrews, R. L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a difference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
82. Smylie, M. A., Mayrowetz, D., Murphy, J., & Louis, K. S. (2007). Trust and the development of distributed leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 17(4), 469-503.
83. Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.
84. Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501-524.
85. Stullich, S., Eisner, E., McCrary, J., & Roney, C. (2006). National assessment of Title I: Interim report, Volume I: Implementation of Title I. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
86. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A.W. (2002). The influence of resources and support on teachers' efficacy beliefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
87. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
88. Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.