Blazing New Trails - Connexions

Creating Shared Meaning in High Performing, Low Socioeconomic Urban Elementary Schools 137
Developing a culture of care (Noddings, 1984) seems to be important to high
performing principals. Students are motivated about their studies when they think that their
principal cares about what they are learning (Gentilucci & Muto, 2007). Teachers and
students perceived principals who care about instruction (not solely administrative duties) to
be more effective in helping them improve their school performance.
Principals who are instructional leaders have high expectations for all learners and
teachers (Egley & Jones, 2005; Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006; Towns et al., 2001). They truly
believe that students can succeed regardless of background; because of this belief, they make
student success their number one priority (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006).
Principals of High Performing Low SES Urban Schools
One consistent finding in the literature was that principals in effective low SES urban
schools seem to devote much extra time as well as effort toward building their cultures. The
leaders in these schools seem to understand the extra challenges their teachers face within a
low-SES environment: scarce school resources; gang activity; illegal drugs; broken homes
and families; and students distracted by the burden of poverty, hunger, and poor housing or no
housing conditions, for example. Additionally, as referenced from a recent news article:
A girl in [a teacher’s] third-grade class has trouble doing homework because six
relatives have moved into her family’s rusted trailer, and she has no private space. A
boy has worn his school uniform for two weeks straight because his parents are busy
with harvest season. ... [a]nd while [the teacher] patiently explains the intricacies of
fractions, he is attuned to the student who confides, ‘Teacher, on Saturday the cops
came and took my brother.’ (Brown, 2011, p. 10A)
These schools and teachers struggle against family mobility, neighborhood violence, and the
mentality of low academic expectations (Brown, 2011). Despite these challenges, however,
educators within high-performing, low-SES situations are strong leaders who promote a
collegial climate, a clear school mission statement, and an ongoing effort and commitment to
improve, and, as a result, retain and ensure high quality staff (Cole-Henderson, 2000;
Rosenholtz, 1991).
Principals in low-SES high-performing schools are able to ameliorate the demands of
teaching students who live in difficult environments by being supportive and providing
systemic practices that lead to effective classroom teaching. To the extent possible, these
high-performing principals make certain that teachers are compensated for the extra time they
volunteer. They also provide opportunities for teachers to have additional “breathing time” as
necessary, such as needed time off and time for academic tasks. Principals in these highperforming
schools are concerned with the problems school teachers face daily and respond to
the problems according to the teachers’ point of view, rather than only from an
administrator’s point of view (Levine & Stark, 1982; Towns et al., 2001; Wang, Haertel, &
Walberg, 1997). Additionally, these principals take risks in interpreting rules and regulations
in a manner that will enhance effectiveness; they are politically savvy (Levine & Stark, 1982);
and, principals in high-performing low-SES schools may ignore regulations that are not in the
student’s best interest (Towns et al., 2001).
High-performing low-SES urban schools have academic programs that are well
coordinated (Wang et al., 1997) and have accomplished this mainly by involving staff with
instructional decision making. Principals in these schools provide resources to improve