Abstract
Most large-scale urban school reform efforts of the last three decades in the United States have centered on providing incentives and sanctions for aligning educational practice to standards set at the district, state, or national level. Incentives typically have been provided for educators and schools to meet standards, and accountability has been enacted through various punitive sanctions when schools and educators have not met benchmarks or showed gains in outcome indicators. As pressure for improving student achievement in the current standards-based accountability environment continues to intensify and test results are scrutinized with unprecedented attention, school leaders are urged to focus their leadership efforts on the core purpose of schooling—teaching and learning (Kohn 2000). This chapter discusses the impact of assessment/standards-based reform on instructional leadership within the policy context of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; Chrismer et al., Harvard Education Review 76(4):461–473, 2006; Supovitz, Developing communities of instructional practice, 2001; Supovitz and Poglino, Instructional leadership in a standards-based reform, 2001) and how leadership, not just by the principal but by a wider cast of individuals in both formal and informal leadership roles, plays a critical role in reinforcing instructional improvement and instructional quality that lead to accountability and improved student achievement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111–5, 111th Cong., 1st sess. (2009). The RTT fund is described in Title XIV, Section 14006 of the law. See Recovery.gov, “The Recovery Act”. Retrieved from http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx. Accessed 17 Feb 2009.
Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. (2003). The effects of high stakes testing on student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32–37.
Anderson, J. A. (2005). Accountability in education. Education Policy Series, 1, 1–26.
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.
Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents and principals can make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Berliner, D. (2005). The near impossibility of testing for teacher quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 205–213.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C, Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 9–21.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349–378
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2001). The teacher’s principal. Journal of Staff Development, 22(1), 22–25.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Brighton, C. M. (2002). Straddling the fence: Implementing best practices in the age of accountability. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 30–33.
Brooks, J. S. (2006a). Tinkering toward utopia or stuck in a rut? School reform implementation at Wintervalley High. Journal of School Leadership, 16(3), 240–265.
Brooks, J. S. (2006b). The dark side of school reform: Teaching in the space between reality and utopia. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Brooks, J. S., Jean-Marie, G., Normore, A. H., & Hodgins, D. (2007). Distributed leadership for social justice: Equity and influence in an urban high school. Journal of School Leadership, 17(4), 378–408.
Brown, C. P. (2010). Children of reform: The impact of high-stakes education reform on preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 477–491.
Buck, S., Ritter, G. W., Jensen, N. C., & Rose, C. P. (2010).Teachers say the most interesting things—An alternative view of testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 50–54.
Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C (2009). Pyramid response to intervention: RTI, professional learning communities, and how to respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.
Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 205–231.
Cawelti, G. (2006). The side effects of NCLB. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 64–68.
Center on Education Policy. (2008). A call to restructure restructuring: Lessons from the no child left behind act in five states. Washington: Center on Education Policy.
Chrismer, S. S., Hodge, S. T., & Saintil, D. (2006, winter). Introduction to assessing NCLB. Harvard Education Review, 76(4), 461–473
Cizek, G. J. (2001). More unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(4), 19–27.
Cobb, R. B., & Alwell, M. (2009). Transition planning/coordinating interventions for youth with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(2), 70–81.
Cohen, M. (2002). Unruly crew. Education Next, 2(3), 43–47.
Covaleskie, J. F. (2002). Two cheers for standardized testing. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 6(2). Retrieved on March 5, 2012 from http://www.ucalgary.ca/∼iejll/volume6/covaleskie.html.
Cuban, L. (1998). Managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Standards and assessments: Where we are and what we need. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from http://www.tcrecord.org.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Barnett, B. (2006). Highly qualified teachers for all. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 14–20.
Darling-Hammond, L., Rustique-Forrester, E., & Pecheone, R. L. (2005). Multiple measures approaches to high school graduation: A review of state student assessment policies. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from http://www.schoolredesign.net/srn/mm/pdf/multiple_measures.pdf.
DeVito, P. J. (2010). The oversight of state standards and assessment programs: Perspectives from a former state assessment director. Washington: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.). (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington: Solution Tree.
Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Fusarelli, L. (2004).The potential impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on equity and diversity in American education. Educational Policy, 18(1), 71–94.
Fusarelli, L. (2007). Restricted choices, limited options: Implementing choice and supplemental educational services in No Child Left Behind. Educational Policy, 21(1), 132–154.
Gayles, J. (2007). Race, reward, and reform: An implicative examination of the Florida School Recognition Program. Educational Policy, 21(3), 439–456.
Glickman, C., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2009). The basic guide to supervision and instructional leadership. Boston: Pearson Education.
Gonzalez, R. (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for local educators and advocates for Latino students, families, and communities. Washington: National Council of La Raza.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653–696). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Haertel, E. H. (1999). Performance assessment and education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 662–666.
Hall, D., & Kennedy, S. (2006). Primary progress, secondary challenge: A state-by-state look at student achievement patterns. Washington: Education Trust.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124–134.
Herman, J. L. (2004). The effects of testing on instruction. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 141–166). New York: Teachers College Press.
Hershberg, T., Simon, V. A., & Lea-Kruger, B. (2004). The revelations of value-added: An assessment model that measures student growth in ways that NCLB fails to do. School Administrator, 61(11), 10–12.
Hess, F. M. (2010). Why I’m feeling sorry for Sec. Duncan. Rick Hess Straight Up. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2010/08/why_im_feeling_sorry_for_sec_duncan.html.
Hord, S. (1997) Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/.
Hord, S., & Sommers, W. (Eds.). (2008). Leading professional learning communities, voices from research and practice. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Huffman, J. B., Pankake, A., & Munoz, A. (2007). The tri-level model in action: Site, district, and state plans for school accountability in increasing school success. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 569–582.
Hughes, T. A., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2007). Professional learning communities and the positive effects on achievement: A national agenda for school improvement. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from http://www.allthingsplc.info/pdf/articles/plcandthepositiveeffects.pdf.
Klein, S., Hamilton, L., McCaffrey, D., & Stretcher, B (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us? Santa Monica: RAND Corp.
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., & Talbert, J. E. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective tools for school and district leaders. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth: Heineman.
Kornhaber, M. L. (2004). Appropriate and inappropriate forms of testing, assessment, and accountability. Educational Policy, 18(1), 45–70.
Lee, J. (2004). Multiple facets of inequity in racial and ethnic achievement gaps. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(2), 51–73.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Learning from leadership project: Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. Toronto: The Wallace Foundation.
Manna, P. (2006). Control, persuasion, and educational accountability: Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Educational Policy, 20(3), 471–94.
Manna, P. (2010). Competitive grant making and education reform Assessing Race to the Top’s current impact and future prospects. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from http://www.aei.org/paper/100156.
Marshall, K. (2005). It’s time to rethink teacher supervision and evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(10), 727–744.
McGhee, M. M., & Nelson, S. (2005). Sacrificing leaders, villainizing leadership: How educational accountability policies impair school leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 728–734.
McLaughlin, M., & J. Talbert. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.
Mintrop, H., & Sunderman, G. L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement—and why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 353–364.
Neil, M. (2003). The dangers of testing. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 43–46.
Newman, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. Madison: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
Normore, A. H. (2004). Leadership success in schools: Planning, recruitment and socialization. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 8(10), Special Issue. Retrieved on March 5, 2012 from http://www.ucalgary.ca/∼iejll.
Normore, A. H. (2006). Leadership recruitment and selection in school districts: Trends and issues. Journal of Educational Thought, 40(1), 41–73.
Normore, A. H. (2007). A continuum approach for developing school leaders in a large urban school district. UCEA Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(3). Retrieved on March 5, 2012 from http://www.ucea.org/JRLE/issue.php.
Olebe, M. (2005). Helping new teachers. The Clearing House, 78(4), 158–163.
Platt, R. (2004). Standardized tests: Whose standard are we talking about? Phi Delta Kappan, 85(5), 381–382.
Popham, W. J. (2001). Teaching to the test. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 16–20.
Popham, W. J. (2004). All about accountability/Why assessment illiteracy is professional suicide. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 82–83.
Reese, M., Gordon, S. P., & Price, L. R. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions of high-stakes testing. Journal of School Leadership, 14, 464–496.
Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge of leading 21st-century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22(1), 181–203.
Sherman, W. (2008). No Child Left Behind: A legislative catalyst for superintendent action to eliminate test-score gaps? Educational Policy, 22(5), 675–704.
Skerrett, A., & Hargreaves, A. (2008). Student diversity and secondary school change in a context of increasingly standardized reform. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 913–945.
Smith, M. L., & Fey, P. (2000). Validity and accountability of high-stakes testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 334–344.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.
Stiggins, R. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 22–27.
Sunderman, G., Kim, J., & Orfield, G. (2005). NCLB meets school realities: Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Supovitz, J. A. (2001). Developing communities of instructional practice. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Supovitz, J.A. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2), 211–227.
Supovitz, J. (2010). Is high-stakes testing working? @PENNGSE: A review of research, 7(2). Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from http://www.gse.upenn.edu/review.
Supovitz, J. A., & Christman, J. B. (2003). Developing communities of instructional practice: Lessons from Cincinnati and Philadelphia. (CPRE Policy Briefs RB-39). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Supovitz, J. A., & Poglino, S. (2001). Instructional leadership in a standards-based reform. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Tucker, C. (2008). Implementing and sustaining professional learning communities in support of student learning. Alexandria: Educational Research Service.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tye, B. B., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Why are experienced teachers leaving the profession? Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 24–32.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (2008). Accountability, assessments, and transparency: How the final Title 1 regulations support and strengthen the fundamental tenets of NCLB. Washington: US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2009). Race to the top fund; final rule. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-27426.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). Reward excellence and promote innovation. Reauthorizing the elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/faq/reward-excellence.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010b). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2010c). Race to the top fund: Legislation, regulations, and guidance. Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/legislation.html.
Williams, R., Brien, K., Sprague, C., & Sullivan, G. (2008). Professional learning communities: Developing a school-level readiness instrument. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 74(6). Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from http://umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/illiamsspraguesullivan.html.
Vescio V., Ross, D., & Adams A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 80–91.
Volante, L., & Cherbini, L. (2007). Connecting educational leadership with multi-level assessment reform. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 11(12). Retrieved on March 6, 2012 from http://www.ucalgary.ca/iejll/vol11/volante.
Watanabe, M. (2007). Displaced teacher and state priorities in a high-stakes accountability context. Educational Policy, 21(2), 311–368.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, M. (Ed.). (2004). Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability: 103rd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wolcott, H. F. (1973). The man in the principal’s office: An ethnography. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Zependa, S. J., Mayers, R. S., & Benson, B. N. (2003). The call to teacher leadership. New York: Eye on Education.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 US Government
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Normore, A.H., Brooks, J.S. (2012). Instructional Leadership in the Era of No Child Left Behind: Perspectives from the United States. In: Volante, L. (eds) School Leadership in the Context of Standards-Based Reform. Studies in Educational Leadership, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4095-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4095-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4094-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4095-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)