The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

Leadership
Leadership practices of practices
successful middle school
principals
31
Karen Leigh Sanzo
Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership, College of Education, Received January 2010
Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA Revised March 2010
Accepted June 2010
Whitney H. Sherman
Department of Educational Leadership, Virginia Commonwealth University,
Richmond, Virginia, USA, and
Jennifer Clayton
Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership, College of Education,
Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to be one in a series examining the leadership best practices of school
principals as they lead in an accountability- and standards-driven school environment. The lack of
research and necessity to find successful practices to improve student achievement highlight the need
for this study.
Design/methodology/approach – An inductive exploratory study was designed to provide insight
into how successful middle school principals facilitate high levels of student achievement.
Findings – Common themes of practices enabling the principals to serve effectively in their schools
emerged from the conversations and were grouped in the following categories: sharing leadership;
facilitating professional development; leading with an instructional orientation; and acting openly and
honestly.
Originality/value – This research contributes to the field by providing insights into the practices of
leaders of successful schools in a high-stakes testing environment. The study provides a framework on
which leaders should model their own practices, as well as informing leadership preparation programs
areas around which to focus their instructional content.
Keywords Education, Leadership, Principals, Schools
Paper type Research paper

In the USA, accountability in the public schools has been inextricably linked with The
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 since it was signed into law on January 8,
2002. In Virginia, the NCLB legislation rode in on the tail of an accountability system,
the Virginia Accountability Initiative (VAI), which, while already vigorous in
comparison to most states, failed to recognize and require treatment and prevention of
achievement gaps. The inception of NCLB ushered in a period of intense focus on Journal of Educational
accountability and high standards in US schools. Although schools have always been Administration
Vol. 49 No. 1, 2011
held accountable for student performance, whether through fiscal sanctions or public pp. 31-45
opinion, this federal mandate has brought attention to achievement gaps, rewards and q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
sanctions for teachers and schools like no other time before, and has caused public DOI 10.1108/09578231111102045
JEA scrutiny so intense that a day does not go by that a school, a district, a teacher, or a
49,1 leader’s practice is not brought into question in a highly public manner.
Failure to meet federal accountability standards, also known as Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) under NCLB, and state standards will result in a number of sanctions
against the school and district, including eliminating federal funding and school
reconstitution. While schools and communities must work together for achievement,
32 the role of the principal in ensuring that schools continually meet AYP and state
accreditation standards is vital because it is the school leader who sets the tone for all
activities in the school. According to Leithwood et al. (2006, pp. 14-15), “there is not a
single documented case of a school successfully turning around its pupil achievement
trajectory in the absence of talented leadership”.
Elmore (2005) argues that the demands placed upon school leaders in the current
age of accountability have universally and fundamentally changed the face of modern
school leadership. However, there is a lack of empirical research on the practices of
successful principals in a post-NCLB era (Hale and Rollins, 2006). This project is one in
a series of studies examining the practices of successful school principals in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The first two explored the practices of elementary and
high school principals, and this research, therefore, addresses the laments of Leithwood
(2005, p. 619) that qualitative studies are often not “revisited in subsequent studies by
the original researchers”. By placing this study in the context of a series of studies
conducted by the authors (see Crum and Sherman, 2008), we seek to address
Leithwood’s concerns. Our current study attempts to provide the field with information
about how successful middle school leadership can positively impact student
achievement in a climate of educational accountability. We set the context for this
study by discussing accountability and the impact of the school leader on student
achievement. The emergent themes from an inductive analysis of the middle school
principal interviews are examined and implications for practice are discussed.
Recommendations for educational leadership training, practice, and research are also
provided.

Accountability
Accountability is not a new concept (Normore, 2003). Demands for accountability in the
public school system however, have dramatically increased in the USA within the past
25 years to the point where accountability is a daily, pervasive (and sometimes
intrusive) reality of school practice. In the USA, the early 1990s led to a period of public
and political demand for increased transparency in school academic performance.
According to Normore (2003, p. 56):
[. . .] in the 1990s, the standards movement, a development of A Nation at Risk’s call for high
expectations and goals for all learners, sought to raise achievement by instituting a system of
standards for what students should know, curriculum to embody the standards, and the
assessments to test how well students meet the standards.
NCLB established a system of benchmarks which schools are required to meet on
specified timelines. All schools must show AYP of both the student body in its entirety
and for specific student subgroups on achievement tests, as well as in other categories
such as attendance and graduation rates. The requirements at the federal level increase
on a yearly basis. While some schools have been able to consistently meet the required
standards, others have struggled and currently face sanctions, including financial Leadership
penalties and school reconstitution. In Virginia, for example, 26 percent of schools and practices
59 percent of divisions did not meet AYP in 2008-2009 based on 2007-2008 achievement
(Virginia Department of Education, 2008-2009).
The structure of middle schools varies from district to district, and even from school
to school. In the USA, the current model for most middle schools is one that focuses on
academics, citizenship, and social/emotional development, as opposed to a junior 33
high/miniature high school model for the middle school grades. Efficacy of the current
middle school model is being questioned and accountability demands are placing a
strain on middle schools’ ability to meet the academic needs of students, while
addressing the other focal points of the middle grade schools (Brown et al., 2004).
Leadership at the middle school level is therefore complex and numerous demands are
placed on principals on a daily basis. Contemporary middle school leaders have a vast
array of responsibilities and “been characterized as one who must be a
transformational leader, the primary change agent in the school, an expert in
teaching and learning, and one who can engage in collaborative leadership and
decision making” (Petzko et al., 2002, p. 4).

Principal’s impact on achievement

Although classroom instruction has the greatest school level impact on student
achievement, leadership has the second greatest effect (Leithwood et al., 2004). Gurr
et al. (2005, p. 548) found that “the principal remains an important and significant
figure in determining the success of a school” in their case study research on
Australian principals. Likewise, Marzano et al. (2005), found that leaders who improve
upon their leadership skills and responsibilities can contribute to as much as a 10
percentile point increase on student test scores.
Leithwood et al. (2006) explored the literature on successful school leadership and
found four common core practices:
(1) setting directions;
(2) developing people;
(3) redesigning the organization; and
(4) managing the instructional (teaching and learning) program.

(See Successful School Leadership: What It Is and How It Influences Pupil Learning
(Leithwood et al., 2006) for a full description of each of the four core practices and 14
specific categories.)
“Core practices are not all that people providing leadership in schools do. But they
are especially critical practices known to have significant influence on organizational
goals” (Leithwood et al., 2006, p. 19). Utilizing these practices enables us to move
beyond a ”cause-and-effect” approach to effective school leadership found in many
studies (Parkes and Thomas, 2006) and explore the multi-faceted nature of the
leadership position.
The increased emphasis on high-stakes accountability has amplified the focus on
factors that influence student achievement. School leadership, in particular, has been
scrutinized as to whether a principal’s actions directly or indirectly impact school and
student success (Leithwood et al., 2006). While there are numerous tasks that compete
JEA for a leader’s attention, research demonstrates that effective principals positively
49,1 impact student learning and achievement through their role as instructional leaders,
albeit in indirect ways (Boyan, 1988; Dinham, 2005; Gurr et al., 2006; Hallinger and
Heck, 1998; Leithwood and Riehl, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005).
In an international study of successful principals in high-poverty schools,
researchers found that principals displayed similar leadership attributes and styles
34 most closely linked to setting and maintaining a specific direction for their schools
(Yilmaki et al., 2007). This requires leaders to have both information of the current state
of the school and the vision to know where the school needs to go (Manasse, 1986). As
principals seek to manage both mandated and un-mandated change within their
schools, they must consider the impact on each stakeholder to be successful. Crum and
Sherman (2008, p. 575) indicated that the educational leader needs to demonstrate
persistence and a positive outlook to reach sustained and effective change.
The increased and dichotomous demands for principals have caused many to forgo
entrance into the field (Lyons and Algozzine, 2006). Tucker and Codding (2002, p. 1)
present a dismal description:
Why would anyone want the job of principal? Many school principals we know have the look
these days of the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. Almost overnight, it seems, they
have been caught in the high beams of the burgeoning accountability movement.
Thus, it is important to examine the practices of successful school principals who have
chosen to remain in the field and involve them in the development of leadership
knowledge for future leaders to maintain a continuous pipeline of leaders (Lyons and
Algozzine, 2006). Researchers should continue to seek a clear understanding of the
experiences of those in the field to guide future training as well as professional
development opportunities for existing leaders. This research seeks to provide
evidence to further practices of successful leaders.

Methodology
Recent accountability efforts have placed an inordinate amount of pressure upon
principals (Mintrop and Trujillo, 2005). As standards continue to increase in the USA,
many schools are not able to meet increasing levels of expectations placed upon them
by the federal government, state statues, and stakeholders. Because post-NCLB
research on practices of successful principals is lacking (Hale and Rollins, 2006),
questions have been raised in regard to what actions principals take who have been
successful order to promote and sustain successful schools. The purpose of this
inductive, exploratory study is to explore how a small group of successful principals in
the Commonwealth of Virginia conceptualize their practices.
This study was the third phase of a larger project that examined successful k-12
principals. The first study explored the practices of high school principals, followed by
a subsequent study on elementary principals. We designed the study to explore the
practices of middle school principals that enabled them to effectively lead successful
schools. Research questions included:
(1) How do leaders develop a shared understanding of their organizations?
(2) How do leaders support and sustain school performance?
(3) What do leaders do to facilitate change?
For this study, successful school principals were defined as: those whose schools met Leadership
Commonwealth of Virginia accreditation standards; those whose schools met the practices
federal NCLB accreditation standards; and principals in at least their third year as
principal. Schools that meet accreditation requirements have met a series of indicators
identified by the state and federal government that reflects student achievement.
Achievement indicators include, but are not limited to, end-of-course subject pass rates
(i.e. English, math, social studies, and science), attendance rates, and graduation rates. 35
Participants were purposefully selected (Patton, 1990) from a list of successful
middle schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Ten principals were chosen,
representing a diverse cross-section of school sizes, locales, and student groupings.
One-hour interviews were negotiated with the principals. A standard interview guide
(Appendix) was used. Participants were asked to frame their responses around specific
instances of action to better exemplify their leadership practices. All participant
identifiers were removed from materials and analytic notes were taken throughout the
interviews to assist in our process of identifying themes from the data (Maxwell, 1996).
Transcriptions from the ten interviews were coded using an open coding, constant
comparison process (Creswell, 2007). Category saturation was obtained after a thorough
review of the transcripts by the researchers (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). A matrix was
developed to assist in visualizing the various themes (Creswell) which emerged and to
identify any connectedness, and therefore aiding in collapsing/merging themes.
Owing to the potential of specific school characteristics being linked directly to
participating principals, only general demographic information is reported. Five male
principals and five female principals were interviewed for this study. Years of
experience as a principal ranged from three to 11, with total years of education ranging
from 13 to 39. Prior assistant principal experience ranged from one year to 11 years and
prior years teaching experience ranged from five years to 17 years. The number of
licensed faculty the principals supervised ranged from approximately 20 to 90. Student
populations ranged in size from approximately 350 to 1,200, with a diverse
cross-section of student ethnic backgrounds (schools either had majority White or
Majority African-American populations with fewer than 10 percent Hispanic and
Asian in all schools) and socio-economic status (from 15 percent disadvantaged to 80
percent disadvantaged).
The context-bound nature of qualitative research binds the research findings to the
population of the ten principals interviewed. Generalizability to the general middle
school principal population is therefore not possible and results from these findings are
limited to those in the study. However, because of the identified need for further
exploration into the practices of principals in a post-NCLB era, the findings contribute
to the expansion of knowledge. The results of this study provide the field further
critical insight into the practices of a small number of middle school principals in an
accountability-driven educational atmosphere and builds on identified best practices in
previous studies.

Findings
Common themes of practices emerged from the conversations with the principals and
are grouped in the following categories:
.
sharing leadership;
.
facilitating professional development;
JEA .
leading with an instructional orientation; and
49,1 .
acting openly and honestly.

Sharing leadership
It was evident that a well-organized, shared leadership structure was important to
maintain a successful school. Principals were asked how they promoted a shared vision
36 in their schools and repeatedly referenced their use of “professional learning
communities” (PLC). Principals discussed the importance of developing and sustaining
a community of professionals that share responsibility for the school. One principal
stated that he developed a “comfort zone” in his school, “by promoting an atmosphere
of shared decision making and the fact that administratively everyone had a seat at the
table.”
Another principal said:
I try to develop leadership within individuals. I try to take some of the most difficult faculty
members who have been most against the changes. Instead of telling them you are going to
do this, you get them to be a leader themselves.
Another principal described the collegial and professional teaming atmosphere in his
school by saying:
I based everything that I’ve done here on team building and team work and that we’re all in
this together. We don’t have core teachers and related arts teachers. We don’t have 6th grade
teachers, 7th grade teachers. We have a school full of caring teachers . . . We’re going to get
where we want to be and help children learn and model teamwork.
It was clear the principals valued a collaborative, team atmosphere within their
schools.
The principals spoke about how they promoted shared leadership through
structured settings and processes in the schools, which enabled them to empower their
staff members. It was clear there has to be a specific organizational structure within
each school in order for shared decision making to be successful. One principal stated
she did this by “building leadership teams and teams at every grade level; grade level
teams and teams within a grade level.” She would meet with the team leaders, share
information and ask them to share with their own designated groups and then develop
questions based upon that information. This echoed the other principals’ structures.
According to one principal, “I do not believe that a principal alone can have an effective
school.”
The principals described themselves as “hands on” and “collaborative” leaders.
One principal spoke to his first-hand experience as to why decisions must be made
in a collaborative manner. He stated “my first year as a principal I told them ‘you will
do this’ and it was a mistake! As a process, they have to buy-in.” He went on to say,
“they [teachers] know if it isn’t what they want and what they feel is going to be in the
best interest of the school and students.” Another principal discussed the need to allow
staff to be a part of the decision making and leadership process by saying:
We get caught up in the day-to-day and being the problem solver. I try to be very deliberate
about asking questions and leading people to their own solutions. Without a doubt,
empowering others to make people feel they can make decisions on their own and shared
decision making is huge.
Facilitating professional development Leadership
All of the principals spoke about the importance of providing meaningful professional practices
development to their faculty. Most were concerned about providing instructionally
focused development, activities that enabled teachers to effectively use data, and team
building processes. Creating a culture where professional development is valued and
effectively implemented is a complicated process. One principal’s professional
development experiences within a school are described as follows: 37
The last three years we’ve been focusing heavily on meaningful staff development. In year 1, I
encouraged people to go to it. Year 2 and 3 I built professional learning communities. They
have to share in groups and share what they learned. It was difficult at first because the
culture was not to share. I said everybody will present at a faculty meeting this year and next
year . . . what I’m doing is to try to get my teachers to see how much knowledge they have,
where to get it from, and how to share it with other people.
The importance of faculty sharing as a part of the professional development process
was echoed in the conversations with other principals as well. Some principals talked
about how they have changed the focus of their faculty meetings from general school
information-oriented sessions to devoted periods of time where faculty can contribute
to the professional knowledge of their colleagues. In fact, one principal shared how she
went against the division directed faculty meeting process of two after-school faculty
meetings per month. Rather than meeting in a “traditional faculty meeting” setting
twice a month, she revised her meetings so that once a month meetings were “saved for
inservice” and the “second one is vertical team meetings”.
Others talked about the reorganization of grade level and content level planning to
focus on professional development and instruction. According to one principal, it is
critical that teachers share their expertise with others because:
For you to have this ability and knowledge base and not share it with others is a shame.
We’re all going to work together. You’re going to have a piece of the academic puzzle at the
middle school just as everybody would.
Examples of staff contributing to professional growth activities include:
Each instructional leader is required to do two professional development presentations each
quarter. Each one has to revolve around the school learning plan . . . It has to all go back to
making education better for children in a safe and friendly environment. [The staff] is tasked
with presenting some type of strategy at every faculty meeting. Quick, down and dirty and no
long winded presentation that’s going to lose people. It is usually something you can use in
the classroom tomorrow.
All of the professional development activities had a purpose within the schools. For
example, one principal spoke to how the professional development committee
conducted staff needs assessments to inform growth activities. Other principals talked
about how their classroom observations directly informed the types of development
and training provided to staff. Another discussed how every staff member had to
develop two professional goals for the year directly oriented around the school learning
plan. It was important for faculty members to “embrace their own professional
growth”.
JEA Leading with an instructional orientation
49,1 Every principal spoke extensively about his or her instructional leadership role within
the school. It was clear that every principal kept a close pulse on the instructional
environment. Principals spoke with a sense of pride at how they had improved the
academic atmosphere in the school, from raising student achievement scores on
standardized assessments, to increasing the school attendance rate to keep more
38 students on task and learning, to restructuring the school day to enable at-risk students
to receive much needed intervention and remediation. For example, one principal
shared his success at his school by saying:
For some of our AYP subgroups – (a) 40-50 percentage point increase in three years. Two
years ago we made AYP using safe harbor. Last year, we made it outright without safe
harbor. All our benchmarks look like we are going to make it again no problem. So in a three
year period we’ve gone from underperforming . . . (to) the second highest math grade in the
county.
While there was a sense of pride from the principals regarding their schools’ success,
principals attributed that success to the hard work of the students, staff, and
themselves. In fact, most of the principals spoke to their own personal qualifications to
serve as the school’s instructional leader. One principal said the rationale behind the
district’s choice to place her as principal at her middle school was specifically because
of her instructional leadership skills.
It is important to get a sense of the various activities, processes, and actions that
encapsulated the principals’ conceptualizations of what it meant to serve as strong
instructional leaders in successful schools. While a general summation of actions can
provide a sense of what the leaders do on a daily basis, it is critical that we understand,
from their own stories, what they actually practice. The following comments highlight
what the principals shared:
I spend, and all of my assistants spend, a lot of time in the classroom. Three years ago we
developed or own very tailored three-minute walkthrough observations.

I do observations and walkthroughs. Our [district] evaluation form is very poor and I attach
my own evaluation form. I break it into Bloom’s Taxonomy, what level of Bloom’s, and do
they have posted what they are doing. I want the students to know what they are doing that
day. I look at how they start the lesson – accommodations, modifications, how they
individuals, and use of instructional technology – it’s a strong feedback form.

My teachers come to me and I review where they are at in the pacing guides, I review their
benchmark results, I review student report cards, and pull in students and ask how is this
going and get them to tell me about learning. I model myself and I bring in coordinators to
model.

I ask this question: “Would I want my kids to have this teacher?”

I feel my role is to be an active lifelong learner myself. First and foremost I think it’s
important for the teachers and students to see that I am constantly in learning mode. That’s
real important. I think it’s important that I’m - the principal is visible in the building (school) –
but not just supervising students in the cafeteria during lunch or supervising in the hallway.
They see the principal is an active and engaging role in the classroom.
 I have my instructional leaders to give me monthly reports to what is going on in the Leadership
departments and develop it around the school learning plans.
practices
I am in classrooms. You can’t lead if you are not in classrooms with teachers and kids. Any
good principal looks back and says I was not in classrooms enough. My first year I spent
more time on managerial tasks, but by year four I feel I was a stronger presence in the
classroom than anywhere else.
39
Being an instructional leader is what drives our program here. It is always constantly and
consistently going and looking at what is happening in the classroom. I read every lesson
plan that is sent to me. It is a very detailed format. Every minute we use in this building
[school] must be treasured for instruction. Every focus question that they use to open a lesson
and every closing question must be sent to me prior to the week.
Principals advocated for the importance of having instructionally sound teachers in the
classroom and what is necessary to achieve a high level of teaching quality and
proficiency. Also important in terms of guiding teaching and learning was an
understanding of data and how to use it to make instructional decisions. The use of
data provided several principals a catalyst for change. One put it this way, “You really
can’t argue with data and that’s the best and clearest way.”
Some principals expressed surprise at the lack of teachers’ abilities to effectively use
data prior to their arrival at the current school. According to one principal:
They never realized that, they never looked in the past. Showing them their breakdown of
grade distribution, they never looked at that and it blew my mind.
Several of the principals discussed their use of data forms to report on specific student
data and instructional interventions and remediation practices put in place to address
student achievement issues:
We look at the SOL [Standards of Learning] and the benchmark data from every angle. I will
analyze the data. The APs in charge of the departments will analyze the data. The content
leaders will analyze the data. The ILs [instructional leaders] will hold meetings with the
teachers on the benchmarks and the SOLs over the summer. The teachers will analyze the
data. Together they will formulate a plan for the good of that grade level.

Acting openly and honestly

As we spoke with the principals, it was apparent they valued an atmosphere of
openness and honesty. They were firm in their assertions about the need to be up front
with their faculty about decisions, as well as their expectations for student
performance and teacher quality. It seemed that this atmosphere of candor promoted
teacher buy-in and innovation. One principal shared that he is “straightforward.
Research-based where I have a reason for what I’m doing”, while stating that “There is
not a week that goes by that I don’t have one or more teachers sit in my office and say
[name] I was thinking about this. Could we try it?”
Loyalty and buy-in, earned from forthrightness, is not something that happens over
night. It takes time, for example, according to one principal, it happens “Slowly, over a
three-year period of time, when issues have come up, I’ve been very open about them
and met with the person that it seems to come from.” This investment in personal
capital is earned through hard work and one-to-one conversations with teachers on
their own terms. Sometimes it surprises teachers and takes them off-guard:
JEA By the second year I was able to be honest and direct with some people who had very
negative attitudes and I don’t think anyone had said to them, you know, your name just
49,1 continuously pops up as a person griping and complaining. Is that the image you want? And
it shocked them. Honestly. Without judgment. But also saying, go and do this no more,
because I know what you’re doing. I don’t pretend. I’m an open-book and I have tried to do
that. I have been very authentic.
40 Another principal stated her approach with faculty this way:
My mantra is if you grab them by their hearts, their minds will follow. I taught that in the
classroom. That works with adults. That’s the way human beings are. They need to be valued
and thought of as important.
As evidenced in the above statements from principals, it is important to take deliberate
steps to be open and honest with faculty. One principal, who came from a “high school
world based on isolationism” stated he made a conscious effort in his middle school to
build an atmosphere of collegiality and positive rapport. Another principal shared his
method for embracing and working with staff in a truthful and upfront manner,
respectful of their individual capabilities and contributions:
I’m wide open with people. If I get something that needs to be done, I share it and I solicit
input. Some people, everyone is used to that now. But some are more forthcoming than others.
What I don’t want is someone to work here and to be told what to do. Basically being wide
open with people and having opportunities to sit down . . . I don’t know anything better than
you guys know. It’s my responsibility to run this school. I need your help. I value, I value, I
appreciate, I value your input.
One principal, brought to tears reflecting on his honest and open relationship with the
stakeholders of his school, encapsulated the sentiments of other principals, in saying
that leadership is “wide open, hands on. I love the kids. I love this school. I put my heart
and soul in this school.”

Implications and conclusions

According to Normore (2003, p. 71):
For school administrators, the main problem is not the absence of innovations in schools but
the presence of too many disconnected, episodic, piecemeal, superficially adorned projects.
Successful leaders have vision and are able to connect the disparate pieces and develop
a cohesive view of their schools which is an alignment of goals that can lead their
organizations to success (Manasse, 1986). In spite of the demands placed on effective
principals in a rigorous accountability system, the leadership practices of the
interviewed principals enabled them to promote and sustain a successful academic
environment. The analysis of the transcripts revealed four overarching themes which
surfaced from the conversations with the ten middle school principals: sharing
leadership, facilitating professional development, leading with an instructional
orientation, and acting openly and honestly. While suggestions are put forth for
principal practice and leadership preparation programs, we acknowledge that the
findings, due to the context-bound nature of the research, are limited specifically to the
ten principals in the study population.
Evidence from the conversations with the ten principals revealed that they were
engaged in a variety of activities that enabled them to provide an organizational
purpose, set a direction for their schools, and ultimately to redesign their organizations. Leadership
This was made possible, in part, through a shared vision involving a variety of faculty practices
in leadership teams and collaborative activities. The current accountability climate can
no longer allow faculty to work in isolated silos, teaching independently from one
another. Principals, as demonstrated by the ten successful leaders in this study, should
seek to provide a common unifying purpose and vision to the school. Leaders’ use of
organizational vision allows them to take into account the system as a whole and the 41
impact of decisions on unique components of the school (Manasse, 1986). As one
principal shared:
I based everything that I’ve done here on team building and team work and that we’re all in
this together.
Principals cannot lead schools without staff collaboration. They need to be able to
empower staff members to make their own decisions and to work with them in a
cooperative, collegial manner.
The principals discussed the importance of facilitating professional development with
their staff members and developing the people within their organizations. They
emphasized that all staff members need to be a part of the development activities with
the purpose of “making education better for children in a safe and friendly environment.”
As Leithwood et al. (2006) points out, it is important for successful leaders to provide
individualized support and appropriate models for their staff. Principals should ensure
the development activities are system focused, rather than individual and discrete
activities without linkages to other school components. Additionally, there needs to be a
direct connection with the future direction of the school and any needs to redesign the
organization, as well as the actionable strategies to move the school in a positive
direction. This allows leaders to deftly manage the instructional program, in part,
through focused and on-going meaningful professional development activities.
Principals who lead with an instructional orientation and seek to manage the
instructional program take into account the unique needs of every student in their
schools. As reflected in the literature, leadership has the second greatest impact on
student achievement (Leithwood et al., 2004). This work to improve student
achievement by principals is done in part through an understanding of the current
status of students within the school and the organizational context, developing the
direction and focus of the school, and redesigning the organization to improve
instruction to increase student achievement. All of the principals spoke of the need to
be strong instructional leaders and set the direction and tone for quality teaching.
Rather than work in a directive and prescriptive manner, the principals worked
side-by-side with teachers to create a warm and caring learning environment. These
ten principals’ work highlight the need to be instructionally minded and strive to spend
portions of their time during the instructional day focused on student learning and
working directly with staff to support their instructional needs and efforts.
Principals continually spoke to the need to be open and honest with their staff
members. As one principal stated, “My mantra is if you grab them by their hearts, their
minds will follow.” This can only be done with a keen understanding of the
organization as a whole and being able to respect each individual’s place within the
larger system. Additionally, this is fostered through strategic, thoughtful, and
deliberate practices by leaders to facilitate a sincere and genuine work environment
JEA where staff feels free to take risks. This is not accomplished overnight. Leaders who
49,1 are new to a school need to be patient if trying to develop an open and honest
atmosphere where one did not exist. Several principals talked about this process taking
several years.
Implications for both practice and further research can be made considering the
results of this current research study, as well as from the larger series of studies
42 looking at best practices of successful leaders. Leadership preparation programs
continue to evolve and reform in recognition of the changing needs of principals in this
age of educational accountability. It is critical that leadership preparation programs,
whether university based or an alternative preparation program, look at contemporary
literature focusing on successful leadership practices. A comparative study is
recommended between program preparation practices and current leadership literature
to identify any “theory to practice” gaps in leadership preparation programs. Failure to
recognize needed changes within programs can lead to a repetition of the status quo
and little to no substantive changes in general leadership practices. The same
recommendation is made for school districts to craft a comparative study between
current district paradigms of successful school leadership practices and contemporary
research. We must be able to take a critical look at our own practices and evolve in
order to meet the changing needs of our diverse learner populations. Failure to do so
will result in a disservice to our students.
While the focus on leadership at the school level is important, the involvement of
external leaders to the building at the central office level cannot be discounted. It is
recommended that a new study focusing on the various roles and impacts of central
office personnel be conducted. Similar research protocol can be used to engage in this
proposed research study. It is suggested that superintendents of high achieving
districts be the first in the series of central office personnel to be engaged in this next
level of research. As we seek to meet the rising accountability standards set forth from
a variety of external and internal stakeholders, it is crucial that school leaders
recognize the practices that contribute to high student achievement and engage in
those to meet their own student needs.

References
Boyan, N. (1988), “Describing and explaining administrative behavior”, in Boyan, N. (Ed.),
Handbook of Research in Educational Administration, Longman, New York, NY, pp. 77-98.
Brown, K.M., Anfara, V.A. Jr and Roney, K. (2004), “Student achievement in high performing,
suburban middle schools and low performing urban middle schools”, Education and
Urban Society, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 428-56.
Creswell, J.W. (2007), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Crum, K. and Sherman, W. (2008), “Facilitating high achievement: high school principals’
reflections on their successful leadership practices”, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 562-80.
Dinham, S. (2005), “Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes”, Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 338-56.
Elmore, R. (2005), “Accountable leadership”, The Educational Forum, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 134-42.
Gurr, D., Drysdale, L. and Mulford, B. (2006), “Models of successful principal leadership”, School
Leadership and Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 371-95.
Hale, E. and Rollins, K. (2006), “Leading the way to increased student learning”, Principal Leadership
Leadership, Vol. 6 No. 10, pp. 6-9.
practices
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R.H. (1998), “Exploring the principal’s contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 157-91.
Leithwood, K. (2005), “Understanding successful principal leadership: progress on a broken
front”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 619-29. 43
Leithwood, K. and Riehl, C. (2003), “What do we already know about successful school
leadership?”, AERA Division “A” Task Force on Developing Research in Educational
Leadership.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S. and Wahlstrom, K. (2004), How Leadership Influences
Student Learning, Wallace Foundation, New York, NY.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D. and Harris, A. (2006), Successful School
Leadership: What It Is and How It Influences Pupil Learning, Department for Education
and Skills, London.
Lyons, J.E. and Algozzine, B. (2006), “Perceptions of the impact of accountability on the role of
principals”, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 14 No. 16, available at: http://epaa.asu.
edu/epaa/v14n16/ (accessed February 17, 2009).
Manasse, A.L. (1986), “Vision and leadership: paying attention to inattention”, Peabody Journal of
Education, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 150-73.
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T. and McNulty, B.A. (2005), School Leadership that Works: From
Research to Results, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, Aurora, CO.
Maxwell, J.A. (1996), Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Mintrop, H. and Trujillo, T.M. (2005), “Corrective action in low performing schools: lessons for
NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems”, Education Policy
Analysis Archives, Vol. 13 No. 48, available at: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n48/ (accessed
September 2, 2008).
Normore, A.H. (2003), “The edge of chaos: school administrators and accountability”, Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 55-77.
Parkes, S.E. and Thomas, R.A. (2006), “Values in action: observations of effective principals at
work”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 204-28.
Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Method, 2nd ed., Sage Publications,
Newbury, Park, CA.
Petzko, V.N., Clark, D.C., Valentine, J.W., Hackman, D.G., Norn, J.R. and Lucas, S.E. (2002),
“Leaders and leadership in middle level schools”, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 3-15.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (2007), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Tucker, M.S. and Codding, J.B. (Eds) (2002), The Principal Challenge: Leading and Managing
Schools in an Era of Accountability, Jossey-Bass/Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Virginia Department of Education (2008-2009), “School report cards”, available at: www.doe.
virginia.gov/VDOE/src/ayp.shtml (accessed February 17, 2009).
Yilmaki, R., Jacobson, S. and Drysdale, L. (2007), “Making a difference in challenging,
high-poverty schools: successful principals in the USA, England, and Australia”, School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 361-81.
JEA Further reading
49,1 Guskey, T. (2007), “Leadership in the age of accountability”, Educational Horizons, Vol. 86 No. 1,
pp. 29-34.
Hallinger, P. (1983), Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale, Stanford University, Palo
Alto, CA.
Jacobson, S., Brooks, S., Giles, C., Johnson, L. and Yilmaki, R. (2007), “Successful leadership in
44 three high-poverty urban elementary schools”, Leadership and Policy in Schools, Vol. 6
No. 4, pp. 291-317.
McEwan, E. (2003), Ten Traits of Highly Effective Principals: From Good to Great Performance,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Starratt, R. (2005), “Responsible leadership”, The Educational Forum, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 124-33.

Appendix. Interview guide

(1) How do you develop a shared understanding of your organization?
(2) What do you do to develop the individuals within your organization?
(3) How do you design your organization to support and sustain the performance of
administrators? Of teachers? Of students?
(4) How do you ensure that you have the attention and understanding of your staff
regarding the need for a change initiative?
(5) How do you develop the capacity for a change initiative within your staff?
(6) Do you work with your staff to understand the implications of state policies, both in the
school and individual classrooms? How?
(7) What do you do to create and sustain a competitive school?
(8) How do you empower others to make decisions?
(9) How do you lead instruction within your building (school)?
(10) Do you have strategic and school improvement plans? How are these plans developed?
(11) How do you meet the needs of a diverse student population?
(12) How do you ensure your practices to meet the needs of a diverse student population are
effected in an equitable manner?
(13) How would you characterize the leadership practices within your school?

About the authors

Karen Leigh Sanzo, EdD is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership at Old Dominion
University in Norfolk, Virginia. She spent eight years working in the PK-12 public schools, both
as a middle school mathematics teacher and as an elementary school administrator. Her areas of
research focus on leadership for school improvement, leadership development, and women
leaders in education. Karen Leigh Sanzo is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
kcrum@odu.edu
Whitney H. Sherman is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational
Leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia, USA. Her research
interests include: leadership preparation and mentoring; women’s issues in leadership; social
justice in leadership; and ethical leadership. Her work has been featured in journals including:
Educational Administration Quarterly, the Journal of School Leadership, the Journal of
Educational Administration, Educational Policy, and the International Journal for Qualitative Leadership
Studies in Education.
Jennifer Clayton, PhD is a Visiting Assistant Professor in Educational Foundations and practices
Leadership at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. She has served as an adjunct in the
role of supervisor of student teachers, coordinator of administrative interns, and instructor. Her
K-12 experiences include work as a secondary Social Studies teacher, testing coordinator, and
curriculum specialist. She is a graduate of James Madison University, Rutgers University, and
Old Dominion University. 45

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints