Blazing New Trails - Connexions

Creating Shared Meaning in High Performing, Low Socioeconomic Urban Elementary Schools 147
writing (e-mails, flyers, and during the grade level or faculty meetings). Beta provided
statistical data to make everyone aware of where the school is in terms of their performance
standing relative to the rest of the schools in their mini-learning community 2 and the district at
large (B1). Everyone is expected to perform at the highest level. As teacher B2 noted:
We go back to the benchmark … [and we] use what [we] know and teach what [the
students don’t know] and look at the objective and make sure that we are hitting those
[objectives] where the students are struggling. She tells them how smart they are; she
gives them confidence.
Teacher B3 added, “[Beta] expects … from teachers that the scores will go up, [and] she
expects it from students. She has no doubt that the scores will increase …. She pumps the
students up in Saturday [tutoring] … always giving them compliments.”
High expectations were supported with an action plan that was shared by the grade
level teams. All teachers were made aware of which students needed extra help as evidenced
by their grade level meeting minutes. School B’s grade level meeting minutes showed the
attention given to each student who is behind or is low performing. These students are listed
in the minutes by name with a description of weaknesses and an action plan to help these
students improve their performance. The students become the focus of the grade level team
and not just the teacher to whom the students are assigned.
Communications
There were three categories of communications that involved these two school
principals: (a) communication with faculty/staff, (b) communication with parents and
community at-large, and (c) communication with students. Together, these three categories
encompassed the majority of the communication that the principals performed on a daily
basis. The principals communicated often and in many ways. Both principals Alpha and Beta
used a variety of media to communicate with their faculty, students, and parents.
There were numerous direct verbal communications, for example, when the principals
attended and participated in grade level meetings and school-wide faculty meetings. When
needed, such as in the case of unacceptable teacher performance or behavior, both principals
held direct private one-on-one meetings with teachers. Additionally, both principals used a
public walkie-talkie system and made announcements via the intercom to communicate in real
time from their respective offices. Finally, both Alpha and Beta extensively used e-mails and
hand-written notes to communicate with their teachers, especially when collaborating on
certain projects. Additionally, in most types of communication, both principals frequently
included a reminder of their goals for the school year.
Teacher A4 commented that principal Alpha was sometimes “heavy handed” and
“redundant,” referring to the goals and expectations of the school that are often repeated while
addressing teachers in group meetings and through e-mails and flyers. Meanwhile, Principal
Alpha described communication of goals thusly, “The goals have to be established. They have
2 A district-wide mini-learning community was established by each area superintendent in this large urban school
district. The community consists of six elementary schools in the southeast area of the district. This is a
collaborative organization of school principals from the six schools for the purpose of sharing ideas and plans for
improving school and student performance in their respective schools.