Blazing New Trails - Connexions

More documents

Recommendations

Info

252 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT role of the principal as the curriculum leader. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2009), qualitative research is utilized when the researchers are seeking to understand events and/or perceptions of participants in the study. Online open-ended surveys were emailed to all university professors teaching in principal preparation programs in Texas. A similar survey, designed for practicing principals, was emailed to all Texas principals, via a state listserv from Texas Education Agency (TEA). Twelve university professors participated in this study, and 188 principals responded to the open-ended survey. Of those participants, all 12 professors answered the question related to defining curriculum leadership, and 188 principals responded to that question. In addition, 186 Texas principals responded to the question related to the role of the principal as the leader of curriculum and 12 professors responded. A listserv was provided to TEA and the open-ended survey was emailed to all practicing superintendents in Texas, yielding 210 respondents who completed a rating scale, and 124 respondents who answered the open-ended questions. The scale listed the six principal responsibilities identified by the Texas state competencies. Participants were asked to rate these responsibilities in order of importance. Open-ended responses were collected through SurveyMonkey and were hand coded by the researchers seeking common responses in answering the two research questions for this study. Both open coding and axial coding were utilized in the data analysis to identify the key themes emerging from the open-ended responses. Percentages, numbers, and quotes from respondents were used to report the findings in answering these two questions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION When answering the open-ended statement to define curriculum leadership, the results were surprising. Professors, though small in number (12), had more knowledge of the terminology and understanding of the research while the 188 practicing principals’ and 124 superintendents’ knowledge of the research on curriculum was more surface, and they did not identify the role of the principal in leading the curriculum. Curriculum Leadership Defined In this study, 12 professors, 188 practicing principals, and 124 practicing superintendents in Texas provided a definition of curriculum leaders. Ten of the professors defined, in some aspect, curriculum leadership as leading the development, alignment and implementation of the campus curriculum. Curriculum leadership also involved the evaluation of the effectiveness of curriculum. Two respondents made a direct connection from the curriculum to classroom instruction. One of the two stated: Curriculum leadership means that the principal understands the importance of curriculum (including its necessary parts of the instruction and assessment); actively pursues excellence in alignment, instruction, and teacher expertise; uses data to inform decisions on program effectiveness and to chart a course for improvement; actively develops personnel for improvement in teaching, and leads the culture of the school to adopting a philosophy that is focused on learning. Overall, the practicing principals were much more general in their definition of curriculum leadership, and few made a connection to instructional leadership. Many delegated
Redefining Curriculum Leadership for Principals: Perspectives of Texas Administrators 253 their role in the curriculum as participants instead of leaders. Statements such as, “evaluating curriculum and make suggestions as needed” and “a person who supports and promotes the curriculum of the campus” were common in this study. Terms such as ‘assisting,’ ‘supporting’ and ‘fostering’ were utilized much more often than the term leading. One participant defined curriculum leadership as “being able to work with the staff in looking at the curriculum and best practices.” Principals defined the curriculum in terms of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS); the state mandated teaching objectives and end of the year assessments. In other words, their concept of curriculum was directly connected to the state objectives and test only. Only 26 of the 188 principals defined curriculum leadership as a role or responsibility of the principal and indicated responsibilities in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the curriculum. Definitions included the support of district-developed curriculum, support of instruction in the classroom, and ensuring that the TEKS are being followed by the teachers. Basically, the practicing principals did not define curriculum leaders as those that were responsible for the curriculum, rather as those whose role was supportive of the curriculum and the teachers. It should be noted that 17 of the practicing principals indicated that the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) were the curriculum. In actuality, the TEKS are grade-level objectives/standards and student expectations mandated by the state to be taught within the curriculum and are not the total curriculum. The principals’ responses indicated that principals did not define curriculum as content objectives taught in an appropriate sequence and timeframe and at the appropriate learning level to meet the student expectations. Of the 124 Texas superintendents that responded, curriculum leadership was defined primarily in a similar manner as the principals. Nineteen superintendents focused on the role of the principal as curriculum leader in ensuring that the district curriculum was followed by the teachers. One superintendent stated, “Knowing the curriculum plan for the district and getting the staff to buy in [is important]” while another said, “Curriculum leadership is the ability to lead staff in the curriculum the district has chosen like C-Scope.” C-Scope is a packaged curriculum adopted by many Texas districts. Curriculum leadership was not the primary responsibility of the principal, as indicated by this statement, “Curriculum leadership is a district responsibility. This role defines the scope and sequence, depth and breadth and rigor of the curriculum.” Though not as many as the principals, 14 superintendents defined curriculum leadership in terms of teaching the TEKS objectives in order to pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test. Only two of the 124 participants indicated that the principal had a direct role in the development, implementation and evaluation of the curriculum. One stated, “Understanding the curriculum to the point of leadership in curriculum development and implementation… [is important]” and another stressed, “Curriculum leadership should be developed both vertically and horizontally. Principals have to rely on previous grade levels to provide appropriate curriculum.” The majority of Texas superintendents did not define curriculum leadership as a direct role or responsibility of the principal. Instead, curriculum leadership for the principal was discussed in terms of ensuring that teachers were supported in the TEKS and/or district curriculum and in evaluation of effective instructional teaching strategies in the classroom. Therefore, the superintendents who are hiring campus principals had little or no expectation for curriculum knowledge or leadership; yet, they expected the principal to evaluate teacher effectiveness in the classroom. These results indicated that many Texas principals and superintendents do not make the connection between the development and implementation of curriculum to the implementation and evaluation of teacher effectiveness in the classroom.
Page 1 and 2:
20 NCPEA 11 BLAZING NEW TRAILS: Pre
Page 3 and 4:
NCPEA EXECUTIVE BOARD 2010-2011 Pre
Page 5 and 6:
NCPEA HONOR ROLL OF PRESIDENTS, 194
Page 7 and 8:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Contributing Auth
Page 9:
Betty J. Alford, Stephen F. Austin
Page 12 and 13:
xii Yearbook Reviewers Kenneth Rasm
Page 15:
INVITED CHAPTERS PART 1
Page 18 and 19:
4 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE (3) The fed
Page 21 and 22:
Shadows and Images II 7 LIVING LEGE
Page 23 and 24:
Shadows and Images II 9 see little
Page 25 and 26:
Shadows and Images II 11 settings,
Page 27:
Shadows and Images II 13 into the m
Page 30 and 31:
16 INVITED CHAPTERS Purpose of the
Page 32 and 33:
18 INVITED CHAPTERS do not recogniz
Page 34 and 35:
20 INVITED CHAPTERS Research Proced
Page 36 and 37:
22 INVITED CHAPTERS Political maneu
Page 38 and 39:
24 INVITED CHAPTERS CONCLUSION This
Page 40 and 41:
26 INVITED CHAPTERS Johnson, R. B.,
Page 43 and 44:
Complexities in the Workload of Pri
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
47 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SHARED LEADER
Page 63 and 64:
Professional Learning Communities:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Special Education Director Burnout
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Superintendent Decision-making and
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRITICAL ISSUES
Page 125 and 126:
Administrative Functions The Admini
Page 127 and 128:
The Administration of Special Educa
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133:
Page 137 and 138:
CRITICAL ISSUES IN PROMOTING ACADEM
Page 139 and 140:
The Effective Practices and Beliefs
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Creating Shared Meaning in High Per
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173:
Page 176 and 177:
162 CRITICAL ISSUES IN PROMOTING AC
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Principals and Teachers Stated Beli
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216: Distinguishing Practices for Admini
Page 225: CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IMPROVEME
Page 228 and 229: 214 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IMPRO
Page 289 and 290: The Social Justice Implications of
Page 301 and 302: Name Exton Gateway Experiences with
Page 303 and 304: Experiences with PTELL in Six Illin
Page 309: Part 5 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION
Page 312 and 313: 298 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LE
Page 314 and 315: 300 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LE
Page 316 and 317:
302 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LE
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 333 and 334:
CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LEADER
Page 335 and 336:
Service to the Profession: The Forg
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Qualitative Data Service to the Pro
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
show all

Blazing New Trails - Connexions

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?